Best Camera under $10,000 for Large Screen Projection
 

I've been researching this site for a few weeks learning a ton about HDV and HD, but, in practical terms, I am more confused than ever. So, I am going to just throw this out there point blank.

What is the best camera under $10,000 to shoot a narrative feature? This will be the only sole purpose of the camera. Nothing else.

Yes, go check out the cameras, see the image on a HD display, understand the difference in workflows between P2 and HDV....

To me these are all work arounds to get that image that will hold up to being projected digitally on a large screen or blown up to 35mm without going too soft or noisy.

I am in Korea where a lot of cinemas are projecting independent projects digitally on large screens and have seen many HD films that look quite nice, a little short of super 16mm blown up to 35mm. What can I expect from HDV in comparison to HD? And what is the best camera to achieve this?

Thanks, and you guys have made a great community with this site! Really appreciate everything I've picked up here the past few weeks...

The best scenario for purchase of an under $10k camera is high definition uncompressed, which can be achieved by most cameras through SDI or HDMI; however, you would have to find an efficient and practical way to record the uncompressed images. Currently, none exist, unless a laptop with an external SDI or HDMI capture device digitizing to a huge raid is efficient enough, or a $17k wavelet recorder is practical enough.

As far as picking the best under $10k, that's like apples and oranges. All the three chip cameras mentioned on this site record very nice images. HDV was never intended for the big screen. It doesn't mean it cannot be used, but as the main camera, I feel you're not going to be satisfied with the end product.

Another negative is all of the current under $10k cameras use 1/3 inch or less chips... poor low light performance and low latitude is not ideal for a big screen feature. To be honest, I would not use HDV or any under $10k camera, except for "B" or secondary cam work, for the big screen.

Since this is a one-time narative feature, why don't you rent a 2k camera like "Red" for the shooting? If you're organized, it will fit within you budget, and the images will hold up and look very nice on the big screen.

Hey John,

Thanks for the honest but sobering reply. As I've researched this issue on the net, I knew deep inside it wasn't the right way to go, but there is so much hype and excitement that it can cloud one's judgement.

I am actually considering purchasing a Red Camera but just found out that there is a waiting list till February...?...

Since I am in Korea, what do you think is the best way to get my hands on a rental?

Again, thanks for being honest, much appreciated.

People have been able to get good quality when hooking these "sub 10k" cameras to a 35mm adapter, or if your able to rent out a camera, try using a Sony F900r or for the same amount just hire out a 16mm camera like an Arri SR2 mkII, they rent them out real cheap these days, My point is, there are alot of options, but they have been the same options given to me too, Heck I shot with an SR2 MkII and used my JVC HD100 as my B-Cam, after grading it in post, it was workable. So Try thinking outside the square dude, A good DOP tries to always make magic with what they've been given. If lit right these sub 10k cameras can produce awesome images, well good luck.

Gosh, I don't know. Here's a list of some rental companies in your area. Try calling them to see what's available.

NEWCAM
T: +82 2 3444 5611
F: +82 2 3445 5297
junsang14@yahoo.co.kr
www.newcamplus.com
Seoul

OpticalCam
T: +82 2 2234 6224
F: +82 2 2234 4355
opticalfilm@korea.com
Seoul

ProCam Inc.
T: +82 25 555 795
F: +82 25 555 794
procaminc@kornet.net
Seoul

Shin Young Film Co.
T: +82 2 2266 6510, 2274 6062
F: +82 2 2269 8520
syfilm@hanmail.net
Seoul

Some Picture & Rental Co., Ltd.
T: +82 02 2266 6828
F: +82 02 226 6827

I think mostly they have film cameras, but you never know. The post above mentioning The Sony F900 HDCam would be a very good choice as well for a rental if you can't find a 2k camera. It would produce very nice images for the big screen. Silicon Imaging also has the SI2K and the SI2k mini if you're looking to buy a 2k camera.

Here's another company:

AceTronix., Ltd.
Jong Lark Paeng
6F, Irero Bldg, 47-11, Bangi-Dong, Songpa-Gu
Seoul,138-050, Korea
(82) 2-420-2343 (x-119) (ph)
(82) 2-420- 2212 (fax)

You can also try contacting your film commision in Korea.

Good Luck!

The film/photo lens adapter can just give you a better DOF looking image, but still do depend on the CCD's resolution, which is still 1/3" in sub-10K cameras.

My guess is you mean a super-16 camera, like those you mentioned, no just 16mm. The transfer to video will be much better, using a 2K scanner or better then.

What I have been researching, for a film & video theatrical project I should be shooting next year, is what options I would have to the Sony F900, which is far from cheap for rental. But I still want tape and real 24p.

So I wonder if the Panasonic HDX-900 would cut it with similar quality, as it records on tape, it's HD, has 2/3" CCDs, and being much less expensive that that F900 might be available for less money for rental.

In I would shoot part of the film with super-16, for later blow-up to 35mm.

you might want to look at the jvc 5100. uses 1/2 inch ccd. 800 tv lines resolution.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Camcorder.html

Being a standard definition camera recording DV at no more than 520 lines, this is not a big screen camera. You would get more resolution out of an HDV camera. The 800 tv lines you mentioned is the the capability of the lens and imagers, not the recording device. This is a good industrial and event camera but not for cinema or for cinema anymore, considering what's out there today.

Thanks for your advice, much appreciated. I have been watching a lot of projected HD films in Korea, and they all have great production values but very bad stories. Its a shame but I know these distribution companies are more concerned with the technical aspects in a movie then a good story. I think, I hope, I have a solid script, but I don't want a soft image projected on a big screen to be the main obstacle in dealing with distributors.

I can say I am going to create a masterpiece and the distributors will not care what format I shot in because the movie will blow them away, but, in reality, there are too many factors out of my control that will ensure a smooth transition from I believe to be a great script into a great movie. If I end up with half of what I believe to be in the script on the screen, I think I will have a better movie then most being shown out here. So, if I choose my format with my budget in mind knowing I will have to compete with the other crappy films that just look good then I know I will have a good chance of selling the film.

Mainly, I was curious of how much of a difference people here thought there was between HDV and HD when projected on the screen. Some of the HDV films I have seen on this board look amazing, so I was looking for a professional opinion if somebody knew what to expect in projecting HDV on a big screen... In fact, I'm still curious :)

Wow, thanks John. I guess I better start making some calls...

Also, I just found the Seoul Film Commission, so I'm going to go give them a visit as well.

Thanks again for the list!

As I am on a similar boat, shooting stuff for a Brazilian film and for another I am directing, I think I can tell you some about my experience:

1) As long as you have enough light on your shot, images will be quite beautiful in HDV. Wider shots may be softer, but as long as you keep your contrast under control there will be little problems. IMHO and probably contrary to what other people think, low contrast images look too flat in video, which added to the flat DOF inherent in smaller CCD cameras, produce unteresting images that your distributors may not like. A higher light contrast ratio, like 4:1 or 6:1, may help there.

2) The main problem in HDV is every time you move your camera. Images get softer, apparently due to longer GOP (15 frames on a Z1) that do not allow for a clear image to be reconstructed. That didn't happen in DV, so in some instances you may even get a final image in DV that will look better than an HDV. I haven't yet done enough tests to prove that or how to improve it. Slow zooms and pans are less affected by this phenomena.

3) Most tests I have seen here that looked well had little movement and had that contrast ratio I mentioned above. Even underexposed areas may look nice if you have an image with clear and dark spaces. You have to be careful with your over-exposures though, which do not resolve as well as they did in DV.

Just a thought on your ideas about why distributors in your country favour certain films, you are forgetting to mention one area: editing. When images look good and scripts are weak, editing can be a very strong tool, probably replacing quite well for lacking script ideas. I don't know how much you know about editing, but you should know quite a bit, particularly for picking shooting angles that you will later use on the film.

I wanted a more intimate feel with a lot of handheld shots like Lost in Translation so if HDV does not handle movement well I might have to scrap the idea altogether.

As far as editing is concerned, yes I agree with what you are saying. Editing, sound mix and music goes a long way in covering up other inadequacies of a piece, like bad story, poor acting and shoddy images. I was a professional editor for five years in my mid twenties when I was making short films, so I learned a few tricks of the trade. Actually, one of the reasons I favor a lot of camera movement is because on a low budget I might come up short on coverage so well executed handheld shots give a lot of leeway in places to cut.

Anyway, thanks for providing more info on the pros and cons of utilizing HDV for a feature shoot...

We're shooting a feature. XH-A1 with a Brevis, and quality Nikon Glass. The hope is to put as much money as possible into the cast, as an extra £X amount of money spent on the image/cam/format is certainly going to help the films chances LESS than that same money spent on great actors. Don't get me wrong, I'm a DOP, but in my eyes we can push the image 90%+ of the way there with the 35mm adapter (essential), great lighting, and solid after effects/ grading work. I have a huge belief in the script and concept- my job is to make it LOOK AND FEEL like a movie, while remaining as mobile and flexible as possible, and without killing the budget to the point where art department, actors, sound post, etc. suffer. I really do believe that- if it looks, sounds and feels like a movie, then the audience will believe it. It may be a tad soft next to a 35mm feature 'when projected', but who's going to sit and compare. (well, probably me, and only me). It certainly doesn't mean that every frame can't be beautiful.

If you're going to be spending big money on your format, it won't be long before you realise that digital is still digital - HDV or F950 or SI2K - it's still not a film print... Distributors will ask- did it originate 35mm? do you have a 35mm print? they will not ask- so, which digicam did you choose? (or maybe korea is more digitally developed, in terms of projection, than the rest of the world...)

I own an HDV camera and haven't experienced the issues people are saying I'm supposed to be experiencing. And successful features have been shot with a lot less than a 10k HD or HDV cam. Haviing said that, if your intent is to only shoot a feature, renting makes more sense.

I like your positive attitude about your project.

That's very interesting. Did you pick the A1 or it was assigned to you? Did you try other cameras, like the JVC or the HVX200? Did you make film tests?
What Nikon lenses are you using? How much did you lose in T stops?

Certainly agreed with you there. I might be willing to try other adaptors, but if I use a video camera for my project it needs to have "film-type" DOF.

Agreed again.

Will those distributors discriminate in any way if it didn't originate in film (whether it's 35mm or super-16 I don't think they will care)?

Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't the Panny HVX200 shooting in DVCPro50 mode work? It's under $10k even with a couple P2 cards, and doesn't have the compression problem of HDV. They aren't even hard to aquire.

I'd try putting a Focus hard drive recorder on it instead of the P2 cards, and dump the footage often to your editing machine. The images I've seen from that unit are quite nice. It's not 2k, but for the price, it's not bad at all.

I think it might be worth trying it, particularly in DVCPro50 HD. Problme are the P2 cards, which you will need a bundle of.

Using an external HDD will make things better, but I you will still depend on a download place, like a laptop or desktop.

In my case I distrust the firewire interface, which I think it's not sturdy enough for field work. Something more reliable, with locked sockets, should be in order.

Apparently the higher priced pro Panasonic models have a better form of firewire interconnect. If not I think something like a 4-pin or 6-pin XLR should be provided, leaving the camera and HDD unlocked terminals untouched.

Admittedly I am not rough with my DVX100, but I've had no problem at all with the firewire connection. What specifically are you worried about? Pulling the connection of out the camera? Are you doing steadicam work where you'd be running with the camera?

On a tripod or dolly, I just don't see this as an issue at all. Certainly hasn't been for us in the past 3 years.

Thanks Brian, appreciate it!

I actually placed an order for a Red package which I will probably receive sometime in Spring which will be too late for this production.

I got a quote of $17,000 for a full F 23 package for 31 days, so I am still weighing my options at this point. I am leaning towards renting even though it will be more expensive, but I can't justify buying all that equipment for one project and getting a much smaller image knowing that my production company will have the Red in the near future...

I always feel like technology is trying to catch up to what I want now, even while surprising me all the time... Does that make sense?

Can't you hire RED in the meantime?
Rental prices should be lower then a F23 (I hope).
If there is someone near you who has one.

None in Seoul that I know of right now. I might be the first one here when I get mine.

People are charging a premium right now which is understandable since there are only going to be a few of these being used and at 4k. Also, I have to factor in additional costs for travel and lodging probably for its operator/tech person.

When do you need to start filming the feature? Specs for the upcoming Sony PMW-EX1 were released today and it sounds like an awesome camera for the price, if you can wait a few more months to get your hands on one.

http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/Show...=1187079500753

It's a memory card camera, like the HVX200. It doesn't even mention if you can use a laptop or HD to record. Which doesn't brighten up things too much for me.

In the end you will always need something to download to at the evening, so even if it can take more time per card (70 minutes for 16GB card at the highest quality) you will have to store it somehow.

Another thing I was reading these days, which I didn't know, that there have been some reports on cards having problems too.

Perhaps the tape has a longer time to go yet, even if everybody is diagnosing it as DOA. Is it really? Looks like when people were diagnosing film as being dead, and it's very quite alive.

True, but that wouldn't stop it from being a good choice for the purpose described by the original poster. At least with the EX1 you should be able to buy several hours' worth of memory cards without having to put a second mortgage on your house like you would with P2 cards, which still cost over $50 per MINUTE at full recording quality.

Tape-based video still has its place, but film-based recording is almost dead now except for big-budget productions - and it may not be long before film is eliminated for distribution purposes. Don't worry, once digital video cameras and projectors get good enough we won't miss film for long, and future generations will find it quaint that we liked grainy film-based images. :-)

It's certainly a better option than the P2.


Sorry not to agree on that one. Film may end up being eliminated for distribution purposes, as it already is not used for editing anymore. But for acquiring, even in Super-16, it's still years ahead in latitude from video.

If by may not be long you mean 20 years from now, it may be so. But the last time I made a comparison vs time passed, film had got years ahead. Just when I thought video was getting closer. And don't get me wrong: I do find video more practical, but in image quality it's not quite there yet.

But getting back to the Sony EX-1 camera, it may be an interesting choice. Pity Sony insists on non-detachable lenses, so I am not sure if the JVC 250 still hasn't an edge there, with the new lens adaptor and internal image swap.

From what I hear the "Red One" camera has decent latitude, and the cost of one of those is trivial compared to the cost of working with film. Plus if essentially all movies are edited and viewed in digital formats with similar limitations to digital cameras, any slight advantage of shooting on film may be lost by the time the results get to the viewer. I remember having similar discussions about ten years ago when digital still cameras were first becoming available, and some photographers insisted they would never overtake film photography for professional purposes. Don't blink, film-based movies could become a thing of the past soon enough...

As far as the EX1 is concerned, it just happens to record at close to the highest data rate supported by Blu-ray discs, so basically the best quality many of us could hope to deliver independently to viewers. That's pretty cool.

As long as a media can handle the latitude film can at being captured, then put it on a practical support, I really don't care if it's video or what. But I am not sure video will take a "blink time" to get there.

There are two main things that are related to film and the film look: resolution latitude and DOF.

Those are things which are relatively easy to fulfill in still photography: implement a large capture cell, CCD or CMOS, which will solve the DOF question, and use a practical storage system for all the information that large cell will provide. CF cards took care of that.

But add a temporal question (movement) and taking care of all that data becomes a serious problem. Even putting all that data on tape became a problem. Compression came in, supposedly to help there, but it brought other problems to the equation.

How long will that storage question take to be solved, in a non-compressed recording system that can be compared to film's resolution, is what we can't still know.

Yes, it looks as a very interesting option that seems to improve on HDV.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the question is what's the best camera for under $10K which creates an acceptable image for big-screen projection. I've seen footage from Sony and Canon HDV cameras projected on large screens and both looked decent to me, but I couldn't say whether the quality would be acceptable to movie distributors. The JVC HD200U uses a shorter GOP than other HDV cameras, so panning issues might be less significant with that. The Panasonic HVX200 seems to be a favorite of independent film-makers but the actual resolution is marginal, so how well it would work for big-screen projection is questionable. The Sony EX1 sounds good on paper but we can't really say how well that will work until we've seen footage from final shipping units. So for now if you really want to shoot a movie maybe renting a high-end HD camera is the way to go, but you could go through $10K in a hurry doing that. There is no great answer yet for under $10K here, so pick your compromises...

Out of curiosity, what source format do the distributors in Korea want for their digital projection?

Not sure Kevin. On average, if I see 10 films in a large movie chain theater about 7 will be projected digitally, including Hollywood films. By far the best looking films projected digitally were local films with HD production, probably on F 23 since this is the camera pkg most rental houses are holding and quoting me for. These are stadium theaters with huge screens and my friends have no idea what was digital or film, they only talk about if the story was good or bad ;-)

I just recently saw a hilarious Korean film shot on HD because a friend had a lead role in it. I don't know about the States but in Korea before a digital projection starts there is a warning about the screen going black and adjusting the digital projector so I knew this movie was going to be projected digitally. But once the movie started I kept wondering if it was shot HD, 35mm or 16mm... Then I spoke to my actor friend and he told me that they did shoot on the F 23 went through cc grading and then output to 35mm film for wider distribution options. I saw the 35mm print converted back to digital projected digitally. It was pretty interesting.

Ok, back to topic...

What say you about this camera for a feature film production for big screen projection?

$6999 Sony XDCAM EX with 2x 8 gig SxS card

http://www.sportsvideo.org/portal/ar...cle_7288.shtml

http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/Show...18707 9500753

http://www.ingenioustv.com/xdcamex.asp

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=171

Looks like a nice camera. So this will shoot 24 at 1080p on 3 x native HD 1/2" 1920x1080 CMOS sensors? Am I reading this right? This is real 24 progressive?

Also, do any of you know lens/adaptor options for a 1/2" sensor? Can I use Redrock, Brevis or some other adaptor to use Nikon lenses for DOF?

If the Sony EX1 lives up to its specifications it should be a decent camera for making a big-screen production, especially compared to other cameras in this price range. You're correcting in reading that it will record 1920x1080 video from a 1920x1080 sensor, which should work well for doing big-screen work. The main thing to understand before buying one is that it only records HD and only on the specialized memory cards, so you'll need to be prepared to deal with archiving the footage from the cards and editing all of your projects in HD. If you can wait for this camera to ship I'd say it would be well worth considering.

Seung Han, the interesting thing in this industry is that things are evolving in a pace that whats cutting edge one week might not be the next.

The Sony EX you quote looks very good on paper, but whats more interesting in it is this- 1/2 cmos chips with full 1920x1080 resolution. The recordim XDCAM format is good, but 4:2:0. I wouldn't think about this camera since I own an HVX, but after the announcement of this device

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=102312

which records the UNCOMPRESSED HD-SDI signal to 160mbps 4:2:2 Intraframe Mpeg2 to CF cards (!!), makes the EX, with its full resolution 1920x1080 chips, a package that's very, very hard to resist. With a 35mm adapter, on paper, this should be a very, very interesting option for film out... Whole package should be about 13 000 USD. (with recorder and 35mm adapter)

The CF Recorder can be used in any HD-SDI camera- so it should boost performance on XL-H1, HPX500, etc.

Really exciting times!

How much of a difference do you guys think the Ex (1/2") and the F 23 (2/3") will show projected on a cinema sized screen? Is the resolution the only concern here?

I would think depth of field would also be a consideration, but if you'd rather buy a camera as opposed to renting one the EX1 is looking good for the price.

Seung Han-

glass (resolving ability, chromatic aberations, range, distortions), codec (or none, ie uncompressed), bitrate, colour sampling, sensitivity due to photosite size and cmos vs ccd, dof related to sensor size, wobble-effect due to cmos vs ccd, etc., dynamic range (a factor of photosite size, ccd/cmos, and complex engineering which favours big expensive power-hungry chips), etc...

physical size of a larger cam can slow you down enough to add days and $ks onto your schedule of course.

and taking the $$ to be spent on a F23 and spending it on a great DOP and/or eye-popping art design can easily add more to your perceived production values, IMHO

With the package that Sergio discribes, It's possible that it won't be that big a difference. With CMOS, you likely won't lose anymore latitude, but it remains to see if the rolling shutter will produce some wobble or other minor problems associated with a rolling shutter. The cheaper glass on the lens will make a difference in achieving a film-like DOF, but 35mm adapters should remedy that.

I do wish Sony went with a global shutter with this cam, but it is what it is. Anyway, getting back to your feature. I think if you can hold off shooting until this camera ships; then I believe this is the right choice. That is with the package that Sergio presented in an earlier reply with the CF recorder. The nice thing is that this won't be a wasted investment as you can use this as a "B" camera once you get your "Red One."

Oh, expect to have on hand a lot of CF cards... at the recording rate that Sergio mentioned, a 16 gig card will hold approximately 12 minutes of footage. If you don't mind changing out CF cards often, then this is the choice for you.

Recording in the XDCam codec wouldn't be all that bad. It won't look as nice as the F23, but the images, I believe, would be acceptable for the big screen.

Here I go drifting off again. The bottom line is that the EX1 will produce images, I believe, close to the F23 if you record the HD-SDI output, and the package that Sergio presented is the best recording solution I've heard of to date. All this is probably a better option than renting but only if you can hold off shooting until probably mid January or February.

Are we reading the same articles on the EX1?

On the one by Nigel Cooper, he says that "...You can record 50 minutes of full HQ HD footage onto a single 16GB card".

Isn't that so? Where is it claimed 12 minutes footage for a 16G card?

That's a reference to using a separate CompactFlash based recording device to capture the footage at a higher data rate, as mentioned in an earlier post. The figure of 50 minutes on a 16GB card is the normal HQ recording mode.

Sorry. You lost me here. What's the difference between cards and recording devices?