I just want to get a few recommendations etc on what camcorder people in this business is using and recommendations for my new wedding business. I was going to go for the Canon XL2 but then some people suggested I should have one which does HD too for maybe two years down the line or so when more and more customers are looking for this.

What’s everyone’s option on this, all suggestions welcome?

If HD is not top priority for your business plan the PD170's are more affordable than ever and are the best low light cam available (for poorly lit receptions). They (PD150's) have been a workhorse in the industry for years. If you want to start a business now HD is not the answer in my opinion. The technology cannot even be officially reproduced on DVD's yet. And when the blue ray technology is available than your clients will have to purchase blue ray capable DVD players. We probably have another three years till it makes sense for all wedding videographers to go straight HD

HD is still 'cutting edge' for wedding video work, but any camera which can't at least record true widescreen SD video is nearly obsolete. HD downsamples nicely to both widescreen and 4x3 SD DVDs, but 4x3 cameras won't yield decent widescreen or HD output. By the way, 'official' HD DVD players should start shipping by the end of next month, and it's fairly easy to give someone an HD disc which will play on their computer. HD will soon become the de facto standard for high-end wedding videos, so unless you only plan to target entry-level customers it could pay to plan ahead.

The main problem with current low-cost HD cameras is that they're not as sensitive in dim lighting as some SD cameras, which can be an issue for many weddings. This means there isn't any one affordable camcorder you can buy today which meets all current needs, but it also means that something like the XL2 could be a good compromise for the next year or two. After that HD is likely to be so prevalent for weddings it will be very difficult to ignore, at which point selling any SD cameras could be difficult. So you can either buy HD cameras today and learn how to work with their limitations, or you can buy SD cameras and plan to replace them soon.

I'm currently using two Sony FX1s for weddings and like them for that purpose, but they do struggle to get a good image in poor lighting. A modest 25-50W on camera light can help with that, and even as little as 10W can be useful at close range. With HD you need to pay close attention to all aspects of image quality including lighting, focus and image stability, but those are things you should be learning to manage anyway. You can start learning now before HD is commonplace, or you can wait until everyone else is shooting HD and then race to catch up...

Correct me if I'm wrong Kevin, and forgive me for seemingly hijacking the thread, but isn't it possible to gain up a fair amount on the FX1 with little to no noticeable noise in the image? This is what I have heard but I have had not had the chance to verify it myself.

Now, so as not to hijack the thread, I will throw in my two cents concerning cameras. Personally I believe it falls on the needs of your market. Right now in my area there is NO demand for HD and there is very little demand for widescreen video. I shoot with the DVX-100A because I love 24P. That is often seen as a wedding video taboo, but for the type of videos I shoot it works perfectly. I could go into all kinds of detail on that but I won't. As mentioned above, the PD-150/170 or the VX2100 is a great, sturdy camera to start with if you are dealing with unpredictable lighting conditions. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the Sony cameras, as I prefer a progressive image and more manual control. But they are tried and true, you would most likely not go wrong with any of them. Good luck on your choice. Remember, you need to meet the needs of your customers, not the needs of your fellow videographers. If everyone is telling you to go HD and there is no demand for it, what is the point? No offense to my colleagues, but I think you need to weight all things in their proper balance.

I shoot with the DVX-100A because I love 24P. That is often seen as a wedding video taboo, but for the type of videos I shoot it works perfectly.

Strange isn't it? When I first started shooting wedding with the DVX people would warn me to use 60i but I've shot in nothing but 24p with always suitable and often stunning results. There have been a couple of instances where it was pretty dang dark and the video reflected that, but guess what....it was dark at the event, the couple remembered it as such, and when I watched the video with them for the first time nobody thought anything of it. The content of the event was what was being focused on psychologically. They did however rave about their video not looking like home video.

In essense, to me 24p is as viable a factor as HD. Some people claim it doesn't make that big of a difference....those people are not seeing through eyes that I can relate to...it makes a huge difference. But I would also add that it all comes down to what type of artist you feel yourself to be and what tools would best suit the feel of your artistry.

isn't it possible to gain up a fair amount on the FX1 with little to no noticeable noise in the image?

Yes, and you can also drop the shutter speed to 1/30th to get about the same amount of light sensitivity as a Canon GL2 at 1/60th. So the FX1 is basically one stop less sensitive than a GL2 and perhaps two stops less sensitive than a PD170, but with less image noise allowing you to get some of that difference back in post.

If everyone is telling you to go HD and there is no demand for it, what is the point?

The point is that HD is coming fast, and will accelerate significantly this year with the introduction of mainstream HD delivery solutions. More importantly, once you have HD cameras you can offer something to your clients they may not even realize could be useful to them, especially as more and more of them watch their videos on expensive HDTVs. You can obviously get by a while longer shooting good old SD video, but that's going to look very dated a few years from now when most people own at least one HDTV display.

In essense, to me 24p is as viable a factor as HD. Some people claim it doesn't make that big of a difference....those people are not seeing through eyes that I can relate to...it makes a huge difference.

24p is an arbitrary cost-saving standard (from shooting film) which has no intrinsic value for delivering pleasing image quality. The only time I notice frame rates is when they drop too low to handle motion smoothly, and you have a greater risk of that at 24p than at higher frame rates. Plus since you can just as easily shoot 24p in HD as SD, so this has less relevance than resolution for picking a camera these days. HD makes an immediately obvious difference to just about anyone compared to SD, but frame rate is a more subtle effect.

Kevin...SD Cams are not "nearly" absolete......they really aren't, and you obviously do not work in television.....I do, and I have never up to this point in time... ever been asked to provide HD....not YET, that is. It's coming of course....





HD is still 'cutting edge' for wedding video work, but any camera which can't at least record true widescreen SD video is nearly obsolete. HD downsamples nicely to both widescreen and 4x3 SD DVDs, but 4x3 cameras won't yield decent widescreen or HD output. By the way, 'official' HD DVD players should start shipping by the end of next month, and it's fairly easy to give someone an HD disc which will play on their computer. HD will soon become the de facto standard for high-end wedding videos, so unless you only plan to target entry-level customers it could pay to plan ahead.

The main problem with current low-cost HD cameras is that they're not as sensitive in dim lighting as some SD cameras, which can be an issue for many weddings. This means there isn't any one affordable camcorder you can buy today which meets all current needs, but it also means that something like the XL2 could be a good compromise for the next year or two. After that HD is likely to be so prevalent for weddings it will be very difficult to ignore, at which point selling any SD cameras could be difficult. So you can either buy HD cameras today and learn how to work with their limitations, or you can buy SD cameras and plan to replace them soon.

I'm currently using two Sony FX1s for weddings and like them for that purpose, but they do struggle to get a good image in poor lighting. A modest 25-50W on camera light can help with that, and even as little as 10W can be useful at close range. With HD you need to pay close attention to all aspects of image quality including lighting, focus and image stability, but those are things you should be learning to manage anyway. You can start learning now before HD is commonplace, or you can wait until everyone else is shooting HD and then race to catch up...

Okay, I suppose "obsolete" is the wrong term. But once you've seen HD footage on an HDTV and tried to convert 4x3 SD to widescreen output, it's clear that SD video is, shall we say, archaic. In context of recommending equipment for a new wedding video business, it's a tossup right now to go SD or HD, but HD is definitely more future-oriented.

Okay, I suppose "obsolete" is the wrong term. But once you've seen HD footage on an HDTV and tried to convert 4x3 SD to widescreen output, it's clear that SD video is, shall we say, archaic. In context of recommending equipment for a new wedding video business, it's a tossup right now to go SD or HD, but HD is definitely more future-oriented.

Kevin,

I see in your profile you have, "Canon GL1/GL2!" What HD camera do you have for your business. How many HD weddings have you delivered to customers and in what format?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Mike

P.S. Andrew has already said he is looking for 16x9, so he will not be attempting to convert 4x3.

Mike

24p is an arbitrary cost-saving standard (from shooting film) which has no intrinsic value for delivering pleasing image quality.


It may have started out as such, but it has indeed become an aesthetic standard of sorts. As for intristic values of pleasing image quality, I have no idea what your basis is...there IS a difference between 60i and 24p video and it is quite large. I have shot and viewed volumous tons of 24p and am quite familiar with the appearance. Where exactly are you getting the idea that there is no difference (in order for there to be no intristic value for delivering a pleasing image quality there would have to be very little to no difference...beyond that it would be subjective as to whether or not it is pleasing)?

I cannot tell you how many "common citizens" have viewed my 24p footage and made the specific comment that it doesn't look like video, and the tone in their voices indicated that it was a pleasing thing. Heck, I even let the guy who was cancelling my AOL acct look at some clips and he, with no provacation, said that it looked like film rather than video and wondered how I could afford to shoot such trivial things on film.

As for being able to shoot 24p "just as easy" in HD, I beg to differ. Each of the "affordable" HD cameras seem to have a different way of getting 24fps (yeah, usaully not full res p) and no way to edit them properly without some form of third party translation software.

Anyway, to Andrew, if you are wanting 16x9 and 24p is important to you (and I'm assuming it may be considering your interest in the XL2) you're going to have some tought calls to make, but do not be affraid to stay in SD at this time and do not be afraid to go with HD at this time...just weigh the differences and meditate on what will give the most support to your artistic vision.

yeah....i know we will be getting it eventually. sd works well for us now though. cheers- j


Okay, I suppose "obsolete" is the wrong term. But once you've seen HD footage on an HDTV and tried to convert 4x3 SD to widescreen output, it's clear that SD video is, shall we say, archaic. In context of recommending equipment for a new wedding video business, it's a tossup right now to go SD or HD, but HD is definitely more future-oriented.

I see in your profile you have, "Canon GL1/GL2!" What HD camera do you have for your business. How many HD weddings have you delivered to customers and in what format?

Ah, I guess I need to update my profile. I'm currently using two Sony FX1s and have had one customer pay for full HD output, which was delivered in M2T format at 1080i resolution on an external hard drive provided by the client. For everyone else I've been downsampling to widescreen SD DVDs, which look very nice when played on a widescreen HDTV.

P.S. I have an advance order placed for a Toshiba HD DVD player scheduled to be shipped at the end of March, so I plan to test that for viability of future HD delivery.

As for intristic values of pleasing image quality, I have no idea what your basis is...there IS a difference between 60i and 24p video and it is quite large.

My question here would be how you feel 24p compares to 30p or 60p, with the implication being that it's progressive-scan delivery and not the frame rate which is the more important factor. If you're sure it's the frame rate which is what your clients like about your videos then I guess I can't argue with that, but there's no logical basis why a low frame rate would look better than a higher one. Life does not occur in discrete increments of 24 movements per second; it occurs fluidly and hence is best represented as closely as possible to such. I guess you could call me a realist, but I'd rather see us move toward 60 progressive frames per second than any lower frame rate.

My question here would be how you feel 24p compares to 30p or 60p, with the implication being that it's progressive-scan delivery and not the frame rate which is the more important factor.
I know that this question was not directed at me but since I jumped in with the 24P comments first I'd like to respond. I think it is a combination of the two factors (progressive scan AND 24 fps) that creates the look. 30P alone doesn't look the same as 24P, and people who have no idea what makes that different can still detect a difference. I can understand your point that a lower frame rate shouldn't make for better video. And I don't know that from a technical standpoint it does. But how many of our clients care about the technical side of things? I've never had a bride ask me "Hey, how does 24P work?" They don't care how it works, they just know it looks better than traditional 60i video. My theory on this is that 24P looks more like film. The motion and flow of 24P footage is equated with film. The look of 60i video looks more like the home video camera. If you take something shot in 60i (say with a GL2 or any prosumer cam) and show the raw footage (no color correction, no slo-mo, nothing) it will subconsciously be related in their mind to the home videos they have shot themselves. It's just the way our society has trained itself to interpret video.

You also mentioned that you can shoot in 24 fps with the existing HD cameras. While this is true, NONE of them except for the Panasonic HVX200 can shoot in 24P. The Sony CineFrame mode, the JVC 24 fps mode, and the Canon XL-H1 all shoot in a different manner. And it is not true 24P. I've shot with a Z1 before and the CineFrame feature wasn't anywhere near what the true 24P from my DVX is like. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, I think the Z1 and the FX1 are fine cameras. But the 24fps options offered by these cameras (and other HDV cams) are not up to snuff with a true 24P system.

And last, but not least, your comment that you have an HD-DVD player pre-ordered that will arrive at the end of March has me intrigued. I guess I am a bit behind when it comes to HD-DVD as I didn't know there were burners available for the format. How will you test your material? I'm just curious and looking for more information on the subject. I believe that HD is the future, I just don't think it's time for me to move on yet.

Anyway, I hope that I haven't been too argumentative in any of my posts. I like to have serious discussions and I like to learn from others. I'm very interested in this HD-DVD player, and look forward to your response Kevin.

Andrew,

THe XL2 is an excellant choice. It's very versatile and can shoot native 16 x 9. It's a choice I think you will be happy with.

Bryon <><

You also mentioned that you can shoot in 24 fps with the existing HD cameras. While this is true, NONE of them except for the Panasonic HVX200 can shoot in 24P.

I said you can shoot in 24p in HD, just as you can in SD. Agreed that the HVX200 would be the camera to get if that's important to you, unless you can afford something better.

I guess I am a bit behind when it comes to HD-DVD as I didn't know there were burners available for the format. How will you test your material?

The first thing I want to do is find out if the new players can display HD video from a standard red-laser DVD, which in theory they should be able to do. If they can then that might be the best HD distribution option for the foreseeable future, since a red-laser disc is much less expensive to produce and much more widely playable than a blue-laser one. If they can't then I'm back to producing widescreen SD DVDs, and I might just return the player since it wouldn't be much use to me.

"but there's no logical basis why a low frame rate would look better than a higher one"

Well, actually there is but I do not understand it on any more than abstract terms...I can see it in my head but cannot describe it. Perhaps it's the speed at which the motion blurs? Perhaps it's the amount of a certain breed of detail (not resolution detail but something much finer...more subtle) that gets captured at that rate....I don't pretend to know the exactitudes of it, but when I see it I am amazed. Like most everyone else I had shot 60i for a long time. For most of that time I didn't have a clue about frame rates and such...I was a complete amatuer just having fun with a camera....but I was always aware of "the video look". It bugged me and I longed to escape it...I had just assumed that there was only one way....to shoot on film. Then I got into video and movie making on a deeper level and learned about these things which timed up perfectly with the release of the DVX100.....got one, went out into the backyard and shot some test footage, brought it in and captured and was stunned....completely stunned. I'm not Adam Wilt or Barry Won Kennobi, but I do see an amazing, instantly cinematic look to the DVX (and I would have to assume the XL2) footage shot in 24p....it's VASTLY different that 60i, still quite different than 30p and it is the artistic aesthetic that I and many, many others choose for their motion picture creation and also know it to be quite distinct from any other form of video.

In fairness I'll point out that the way the camera handles gamma makes a large difference too, so it's not just the frame rate that makes the overall DVX awesomeness, but even shooting with normal gamma the 24p difference is there.

One of the reasons 24p looks good to many people is because of conditioning. The best cinematography we have seen in our lives is always at 24 frames per second. Conversly much of the poor video, news etc we see is @60i. Oddly in Japan they prefer the 60i look or so I've heard.

Mike

I haven't read all the posts but this is my 2 cents. If you are just starting in this business, take advantage of the Sony rebate and buy PD-170s. This camera is industrial strength, compact, delivers great images and is acknowledged as one of the best for low-light receptions.

Forget HD cameras for now because the product line has not matured and there is no real delivery for HD content. When do we really think a majority of brides will have HD DVD players in their homes. When they do, you can think about upgrading everything to HD and by then maybe the Z3(?) will see better in the dark.

Concentrate on learning how to capture compelling images because it is the content in your video that counts the most to B&Gs. Quality wedding video is a blend of artistic and technical skills. Concentrate on developing these skills with your camera and learn from some of the experts in this forum. I know I did.
Bob

The canon XL2 is a great camera, but for weddings? I had a XL1s and used it for a few weddings and each times I wish I had got the PD170. The main reason was after a few hours of carry the Canon around my arm and back where hurting. You better have a mono pod or something.

I just want to say a big thank you to everyone who has posted so far. After reading all of the posts and searched these forums some more I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a tricky time to be setting up a new business like this, as it seems silly to get a high end SD camcorder but maybe too early for a HD.

Although saying that IMO I find it a little silly at this moment to buy a high end camcorder like the XL2 as in two years time or so I will have to upgrade to HD… when I do what will I do with the SD camcorder?... surely no body would buy a XL2 (for example) as it will be an old technology and if they do I’ll probity get not much for it. Also if I keep it why would I ever use it again when I’ll have a HD camcorder?

So at the moment my train of thought goes with a HDV camcorder, as it will also do SD and the HD will be there too ready for when I am ready. I have looked into a few and have been very impressed with the Canon XL H1 although it’s very pricey!!! but it has the Image stabilizer Auto focus. Also… and forgive me for saying this… but it looks the part and in my opinion this counts in this business… it shouldn’t but it does.

Having said all that as bob said…

“Quality wedding video is a blend of artistic and technical skills.”

Which I have to agree with fully and at the end of the end the camcorder is only a tool… but you must still choose your tool wisely! I don’t have another wedding booked till the end of march but would like to order something by the end of next week… it’s a big decision and a lot of money so again any more comments are welcomed… as for me… more researching head banging!

Thanks again in advance.

If you're shooting wedding videos there is no rush to go HD. Spend the $3500.00 on an xl2, my only suggestion would be to buy the 16x manual lens for it. The standard lens is OK at best. (tough to focus correctly)
Your final product will look great and the camera will pay for itself after a few weddings, and yes there will be a market for a used xl2 in 2 years if you want to switch to HD. Don't believe the hype, HD is coming just not that quick.

Mark Bournes
Shark Video Productions

If you're shooting wedding videos there is no rush to go HD. Spend the $3500.00 on an xl2, my only suggestion would be to buy the 16x manual lens for it. The standard lens is OK at best. (tough to focus correctly)
Your final product will look great and the camera will pay for itself after a few weddings, and yes there will be a market for a used xl2 in 2 years if you want to switch to HD. Don't believe the hype, HD is coming just not that quick.

Mark Bournes
Shark Video Productions

I'll have to agree with Mark on that. There will still be plenty of demand for an XL2 in two years. It won't be entirely wasted money if you do go that route now. I'd estimate you could still get back half of your initial investment in two years.

However, I can see your reasoning for an HDV camera. It'll do HD and SD, so it's more versatile. I would pass on the Canon XL-H1 right now as it is WAY overpriced for what it does. The Sony FX1 and Z1 are both great cameras and I have seen stunning videos made with them. Want a sample? Try this: http://www.proeditproductions.com/ This gentleman shoots with Z1s and the videos he creates are incredible. Like you said before, the camera IS just a tool, but picking the right one is important. Good luck with the decision. Let us know what you decide as it may help others in the future.