A little DV cam help?

nomos

Administrator
I know I could go on a dedicated DV forum to ask this but then I'd have to deal with video nerds on their own turf and levels of detail that are beyond me at the moment. Maybe some local nerds can start me in the right direction?

I want to get a DV camcorder and I don't know much about them. I want it to be:

(a) as cheap as possible without being too limiting (e.g. I'm willing to pay for one with an internal hard drive);

(b) of high enough quality that whatever I shoot could reasonably be shown in public and, hypothetically, aired on television/put on a DVD;

(c) not laden with stupid bells and whistles.

So, what are some good cameras/features? What constitutes 'broadcast quality'? Do I need to worry about getting a high definition one?
 
Last edited:

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Paul, I'd recommend just gettin a Sony PD150, they'll be *cheaper* by now. If you're looking for *proper* commercial work nowadays though, it seems they're all asking for HD cameras. I dunno about them, and I'm very dubious. Regardless, I would go for a tape based system, but I'm a belt and braces sort of man. That's not without qualification saying that.
 

nomos

Administrator
that looks really nice. possibly a more serious camera than i need, though. and a bit beyond my price range, but given how cheap a used one is now compared to the 170s, it's tempting. i was thinking a little more 'hand held,' though, if they're good enough.

what would be the advantage of tape over an internal hard drive? i'm not opposed to either, just wondering.
 
Last edited:

nomos

Administrator
maybe i should be less cryptic. basically, i'm thinking of trying to put together a video project/quasi-documentary, maybe 30-60 minutes in length. some or most of it would be video that i shoot myself and then there would be other stuff as well. i'd like to be able to screen it at galleries or wherever and/or distribute it on dvd. and if someone, somewhere in the world wanted to broadcast it, i'd like it to meet whatever technical requirements they have.

i'm really reluctant to go the HD route given the extra cost and storage space, and what a pain in the ass it would be to edit and render (i have access to a g5/final cut system, but still).
 

Woebot

Well-known member
it just depends what you want to spend i guess?

you're right to probably forget HD. the standard HD camera is the Sony Z1, but they're very expensive.

it's definitely an idea to get something with 3 ccd, thats to say enough chips to be able to film colour properly. if you're expecting to get it shown/seen you'll need at least that.

you're probably looking at something like the canon xm2
http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/Digital/XM2/index.asp

or the panasonic sdr-h200 (slightly consumerish)
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...rogram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702

or the panasonic ag-dvc7 (a little more pro)
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webap...emId=68666&catGroupId=14571&surfModel=AG-DVC7

check adam wilt's site also don't be afraid of asking at the dv forums.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Check out http://www.camcorderinfo.com - excellent advice.

I think I got what is the US is the Canon Elura 100.

Beware the budget Panasonic 3 CCD model - it only uses the three CCDs in 4:3, not widescreen, and I don't know why anyone would shoot 4:3 these days.

I'm not convinced that there is that much differentiation in video quality between budget DV cams - so much depends on the available light.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
MIT say it better than I do! The Sony take the DVcam tapes as well as mini-dv.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/dv.html

I'd not use an internal hard drive in the same way I wouldn't buy an all-in-one component hifi - if it breaks you lose everything - plus I've been on shoots where I've ended up using waaaaaaay more tape than I thought I'd have to, and if I'd had a chip set-up I woulda had to take my computer along to download the footage before being able to film again, taking up time ( and battery life ) plus having to lug a computer along...but I screen my work on tape usually as well, I find it more reliable, and dropouts negligible if you transfer what you film immediately.

I'd check what Canadian requirements are for 'broadcast quality', is it NTSC over there or is that just the States? I've managed to have stuff I've done, shot and edited on VHS ( baaaaaaaad quality lol ) shown on TV but I had to really argue its artistic merit.

If you can spend as much money as possible, sorry to have to say. Renting - or stealing - ones from colleges is always a good option ;)
 

Woebot

Well-known member
I don't know why anyone would shoot 4:3 these days.

There are plenty of reasons why 4:3 is still valid. Not least among them because if you're not shooting true HD, anamorphic 4:3 has no inherent improvement of quality. You're still using the same amount of pixels. Also, theoretically-speaking, because with HD-DV you're still capturing to DV cassettes the amount of compression on HD footage is higher.

Most of the work I do for the major TV channels is still delivered 4:3 (even if it is anamorphic), the TV pipeline is years away from being properly able to handle higher definitions. Finally, and I don't know the figures here, but I suspect that the greater proprtion of TV sets are still 4:3. If you shoot 16:9 you're actually presenting your audience with a smaller visual footprint.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
the TV pipeline is years away from being properly able to handle higher definitions

I suspected as much, I heard one guy who works in advertising though who now has to shoot on HD just because his clients ask for it because it's 'cutting edge'.
 

nomos

Administrator
thanks for the help guys. now that i've got a bit more time i'm going to do some proper research and dive into the sites you've mentioned. i suppose i need to decide for certain what sort of end product i'm after.

@ woebot - thanks for the suggestions. i'd love the xm2 but i think something along the lines of the sdr-h200 would be more in the price range i'm considering. though i guess determining what i need in the way of a microphone will also influence my choice in the end.

i'm excited about this. will be sure to let you know what comes of it :)
 

nomos

Administrator
@ mistersloane - good points about internal drives. i'd much prefer boxes of tapes to having to dump onto a computer all the time.
 

Woebot

Well-known member
I suspected as much, I heard one guy who works in advertising though who now has to shoot on HD just because his clients ask for it because it's 'cutting edge'.

ha! yes that rings true. has happened to me. the things is at the end of the day, at best, it ends up on a digibeta cassette (ie 4:3)
 

Woebot

Well-known member
though i guess determining what i need in the way of a microphone will also influence my choice in the end.

YES.

sound is key. the standard starter mic is the sennheiser me-66. their g2 wireless kits are great as well .
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
ha! yes that rings true. has happened to me. the things is at the end of the day, at best, it ends up on a digibeta cassette (ie 4:3)

I've been asked to do this twice this year and I still end up dropping 4:3 to the digi, they end up paying for something they'll never use...
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
@ mistersloane - good points about internal drives. i'd much prefer boxes of tapes to having to dump onto a computer all the time.

It's still worth getting a few fast HD's, it will save you a lot of time on long projects. We use Media100 with 5 Maxtor 300gig One Touch drives, they are fast enough to stream from and are good little work-horses for £130.
 

ome

Well-known member
HD vs SD

It really depends on where your selling your work - i.e. what is narrative format/length. If its euro non sport/events broadcast then as others noted its 4:3 digi-beta. (The UK is behind the rest of the world when it comes to acceptance of new broadcast formats, always has been.) Also its very difficult to make something to be sold for broadcast in the UK, most TV is commisioned. i.e. early work becomes a pilot to help pitch the idea, to recieve funding.

On the other hand if your after the global film distribution market (think DVD distribution and forigen markets) then HD is what you need. Lots of independant docos have gone this route. The quality of DV or HD-DV is very similar in terms of tape and compression used, and the price structure of a pro-sumer HD camera is the same as a DV cameras a few years back..

If your doing effects work, then any compressed formats like DV will cause horrible problems.

Camera quality is better mesured in this order: ideas, operator, lenses, CCD technology. As long as the first two are covered an audiance will only notice that the work is of 'bad' quality if a 'better' format is cut alongside it.

note: audio quality/craft has a Huge imapct of the audiances percived value of a video/film.
 

ome

Well-known member
DV and many other formats are compressed so the amount of sustained digital information that has to pass from the CCD to the tape is reduced. This reduces the cost of the technology and allowed sony so sell the first prosumer camera.

Digital images divide the colours and luminace into three seperate channels of information, when at full uncompressed quality it is expressed as 4:4:4. As the human is more sensitive to luminace than colour, most of the colour data is discared and you get 4:1:1 or 4:1:0 for DV. This is called Chroma subsampling. If you then use a green/bluescreen to film your foreground elements for your visual effect, you have thrown away most of the information you can use to seperate your forground from the coloured screen, creating jagged edges to your cut out seperation mattes.

As a note: the consequent development of compression (as currently used on web) was heavily driven by internet porno markets. This combines chroma subsampling with interframe compression that compresses several frames together thus saving space if there is little movment in the image. The most popular format is mpeg-2 used in DVD's and digital TV.

Lastly the use of compression means that more information fits ito a smaller space, i.e. why digital TV can has so many channels compared to terrestial''s five. But if you look carefully as a sunset or an other gradient of colour on a digital TV you will notice steps or bands of colour/luminace change. Digital TV is worse quality that normal TV, something that is not often mentioned.
 

nomos

Administrator
thanks for all the help. i knew there would be some very knowledgeable people here.

camcorderinfo.com looks great. they have a beginner's guide as well:
http://www.easycamcorders.com/content/Beginners-Guide.htm

from the reading i've been doing, the panasonic pv-gs400 looks like it just what i needed - a good 'prosumer' compromise. unfortunately, it's been discontinued for a lesser successor, the cheaper pv-gs500 and 300 which might have better image quality but less manual control. now that's being replaced by the pv-gs320, which seems to go further in that dumbed-down direction, this time, it seems, dispensing with the mic input. they also seem to be moving towards high def models with hard drives or massive flash cards.

i think it'll come down to whether i want high definition video (still thinking no, for storage and editing reasons) or whether i want to track down the best SD DV i can, possibly looking for used or old stock. i'm going to keep an eye on used prices for the canon gl-2 and sony sony hdr-hc1 (hdv/dv - the last one not requiring a proprietary mic). those would be pushing my budget though. i also need to decide how much manual control i would really use in what i'm planning to do.

i don't expect to be doing any blue-screening, but it's good to know how dv compression plays into that.
 
Last edited:

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
DV and many other formats are compressed so the amount of sustained digital information that has to pass from the CCD to the tape is reduced. This reduces the cost of the technology and allowed sony so sell the first prosumer camera.

Digital images divide the colours and luminace into three seperate channels of information, when at full uncompressed quality it is expressed as 4:4:4. As the human is more sensitive to luminace than colour, most of the colour data is discared and you get 4:1:1 or 4:1:0 for DV. This is called Chroma subsampling. If you then use a green/bluescreen to film your foreground elements for your visual effect, you have thrown away most of the information you can use to seperate your forground from the coloured screen, creating jagged edges to your cut out seperation mattes.

As a note: the consequent development of compression (as currently used on web) was heavily driven by internet porno markets. This combines chroma subsampling with interframe compression that compresses several frames together thus saving space if there is little movment in the image. The most popular format is mpeg-2 used in DVD's and digital TV.

Lastly the use of compression means that more information fits ito a smaller space, i.e. why digital TV can has so many channels compared to terrestial''s five. But if you look carefully as a sunset or an other gradient of colour on a digital TV you will notice steps or bands of colour/luminace change. Digital TV is worse quality that normal TV, something that is not often mentioned.

That's great, but in that case what would you shoot upon in order to green screen to optimum levels? And then edit upon?
 
Top