Thanks for all the information. I will try out a few of these camcorders and see how they work. The JVC GR-HD1 that Chris mentions sounds like it might be worth a try too! Thanks again!

Poker Cam / Lipstick Cam?
 

I'm interested in shooting a tournament style poker game and I need some info on the hole card cam.

Does anyone know what kind of camera would work well for this purpose? I have no knowledge of lipstick cameras and so forth, so I could use any info you've got.


thanks,

THCK

used 3CCD camera
 

Because of the work I am currently doing with the budget I have, I am wondering if anyone knows where to look for a used 3CCD camera. I have had access to and worked with a Sony PD-150 and would like something comparable. Any suggestions or experience with picking up used digicams would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx much,
Ramdas Lamb

For starters have a look at DVinfo's classified ads:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=16

Our sponsor B&H Photo also sells used equipment:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...rch&Q=&ci=2935

considering picking up a camera
 

Hey folks, new guy here.

I've been doing DV videos with an old 1999 model sony camcorder, an old TRV 120 I think I bought new back then.

It's about time for a new camera and I need some help.

I really would like one with progressive scan, as 100% of my stuff is for playing on a computer and the interlacing has always given me fits, but I have a hard time justifying a $2000 camera for the amount of it I do.

As well a smaller camera might get me out taking helmet cam videos on my offroad bikes riding over jeep trail mountain passes and such.

Anyway, it seems I bought before the little spurt of consumer priced progressive scan cameras and I don't see any offered for $1000 or less. I don't even see interlaced or progressive in the specs of most of them.

What is the low end of the current progressive scan cameras out there?

What would be the best bet in looking for a used one? And is ebay the best place to look?

I may someday want to spend $3k on a camcorder but not now, if I did I would feel compelled to go out and use it enough to justify it. :)

Barring that, I use ulead media studio pro to edit, and would like the best info on getting the combing effects out of my videos.

The video is mostly recorded Svideo output from my computer screen through my video cards svga out port. Are there better capture devices for doing this than a DV cam?

Not many options for true progressive. You could probably find an old Optura but it has no 16:9(I believe.) I'd try buying a deinterlacing program. One that doesn't require buying After Effects first is DVFilmmaker. It interpolates only objects that move. Stationary portions of the picture maintain their original sharpness. It's a standalone program for $149.

As far as cameras are concerned, the newer models that do true progressive but cost quite a bit are the Canon XL2, Panasonic DVX100a and the JVC HD1/HD10.

I used to use a TRV110 digital8 camcorder, and it was a great camera for its price. The newer cameras are like two steps forwards and backwards, so you may not be gaining much if you upgrade. One thing that does suck about digital8 is that you can't play back your tapes if you don't have your camera anymore (it gets damaged or stolenor eventually breaks down). So that may be something to watch out for, and possibly give you an excuse to buy a new camera.

As far as progressive scan goes, you could use an adaptive de-interlace filter to make things into progressive (with a little loss in vertical resolution). The ideal solution would be to get a camera that shoots progressive... the DVC30 from Panasonic does it and its over two thousand. There may be cheaper cameras.

2- There are software capture programs available such as Camtasia. If you're making web tutorials, Macromedia Captivate or Breeze looks really interesting.

You could look for one of these:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=31187

I don't follow these less expensive models very carefully, but I think the 350 has been replaced with a new version.

The Panasonic GS400 has a kind of frame mode, which isn't completely progressive, but not interlaced too.
That one costs about I don't know, 1400 dollars new or so? But maybe you can find a used one?
Maybe put a demand in our Private Classifieds board.
Good luck.

Well in looking around I think I might as well go up to the 1500-2000 dollar range, there are some options for progressive CCD's in that range that should do the trick.

I'd only regret it I think if I went with a used 30 frames per second lower res camera that's already a few years old.

Dvc 30
 

Now that you are looking in the 1500-2000 dollar range, you can definitely find a DVC 30 for that price.

Looking for a great camera for right around $3,000. Help?
 

First post here (hi all!). I'm a new camcorder user, but I'm a film major, so I know I'll get lots of use out of the camera I buy, and want something I can grow into, rather than something I'll need to replace in a couple of years. So I'm looking for something with as many bells and whistles as possible for under, or right around, $3,000.

Initially, I thought I had settled on a Canon GL2, but after reading about its problems, I've decided to scratch that and look for something else.

As a student, I'll be using my camera often and in many different types of environments, so I'm hoping you can help.

From the reading I've been doing, 3CCD seems important, as does the 16:9 resolution, and low light ability -- and I know I'll want good manual controls and the ability to change lenses. Is there anything else that is important to look for? It's good to hear about how your camera handles low light situations. I know that I want something that has good manual controls, as well as automatic (but I know the manual are even more important as I go along).

Anyone have any suggestions? I'm especially hopeful that someone with experience with various camcorders will weigh in. In any case, thanks for reading.

Oh, and because of a complicated situation, I have to find something by monday, Aug 15th.

Hi Tina,

Welcome to DV-INFO. With your budget, the current offerings include a couple cameras. The DVX100a is a great camera for an aspiring film major. Another option for slightly over 3K is the Sony HDR-FX1. A slightly feature limited version of the $4900 Z1. This camera shoots in HDV as well as standard DV. Worth a look for the increased resolution of HDV format. With either camera, you'll find a plethora of good, accurate info here to help base your decision on.

Good luck,

-gb-

Hi Tina - and Welcome,
As far as DV, I still consider myself a newbie, but I've learned a great deal in the last 10 months, and like yourself, I did a lot of research online to find a camera that suited my needs. I think Greg is right in recommending the DVX100a. You might find that it has an amazing following, and within your price range it pretty much includes most of what I think you are looking for.

One thing you mentioned that you might not find in your budget would be the ability to change lenses. I might be wrong on this, but I think the only prosumer dv cam that has the ability to change lenses would be the Canon XL2. This is the camera I own myself, and I love using it. I know I will continue to grow into this camera over the next few years at least - but it is somewhat outside of your designated budget - even with a 'good deal' at a trusted vendor.

If the lens thing is a biggie for you, you could probably look for an older 'used' XL1s. I think this model was originally released in 2001 and does not have some of the more advanced features found on newer cams touted by Sony, Canon, and Panasonic, etc. but it is still a strong contender in terms of image quality and customization. I am sure you could probably find a good working one within your budget range.

I am sure other, more seasoned folks will also be able to sound off on this thread. That's just my $.02.
-Jon

I agree with Jonathan: look for an Canon XL1s or a Panasonic DVX100a.

BTW: in your budget, you do have money for a tripod and maybe some accesoires, or a good case and such?
Good luck!

For making films, DVX100a (my choice) or XL1s/XL2.

But what about those restrictions?

True 16x9 or squeeze or anamorphic or letterbox?
Why do you need multiple lenses?
How important is 24p?
How important is "film look" cine-gammas?
Low light is a relative thing, and neither of these cams is as good as a VX2100 or PD170 (but it may not matter unless you shoot parties and bars).

For true night shooting, check out the DVC30 with an infrared light for B&W zero-light shooting.

You cannot really buy a DV camera witha laundry list. You need to understand why you want each fature, because there are a few major brands and models and they all approach the problems differently.

And leave yourself about $600 for a decent tripod, $80-$100 for at least one extra battery, $50 for a UV protective filter, $100-$200 for a case, $100 for decent headphones, and about $1000 for audio, depending on what you plan to be shooting. (total about $2k). Other stuff can come later.

Instead fo trying to buy the perfect camera for the future, I would buy a cheaper cam (DVC30 is possible choice at $1500), spend rest of money on GOOD support equipment (audio, tripods, etc), and learn to use it all. Next year you will want a high-def camera anyway.

I would rather have a $100 camera, $600 tripod and a $1000 in audio equipment than a $1500 camera, $100 tripod and $100 in audio equipment. And everyone on this board will agree with me (except for the doodooheads LOL).

Bob's advice about not skimping on the additional equipment is very good. And beyond that, are you equipped to edit what you shoot? Do you have good software, a fast enough computer, enough hard drive space?

You might have a look at the PDX-10 from Sony, for around $1,600 after rebate. It will give you high quality 16:9, DVCAM, XLR audio inputs and a short shotgun mike while leaving enough left in your budget for the other equipment.

Hey, thank you for such a friendly, helpful welcome. :)

I found this: Link. (hope the code works, as I'm more used to EZBoard code and see nothing here explaining how to do named links...

Anyway, does that look like a good deal, or do you think the kit accessories are crap?

Bob, thanks for asking those questions. I guess that with the short timeframe, I've just dug in and tried to learn what are the 'best' features that I'll be needing in the future. I don't see myself being able to buy another camera for several years yet, so that's a big part of it, too, wanting something I can grow into, rather than planning on trading up shortly.

Thanks!

Boyd, I just googled that Sony and it looks pretty good. How do I get that rebate?

Try this link:

www.sony.com/PDX10Cashback

However, I now see that B&H photo is out of stock on the PDX-10. Perhaps you can find one somewhere else though. There's been speculation that they are phasing the camera out and it's being replaced with the new HVR-A1.

Also visit our PDX-10 forum for lots more info:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Thank you, Boyd, I think I'll be taking a look around to see what I can find on that. :)

Tina, the PDX10 is a truly wonderful cam...I absolutely love mine and am constantly amazed by the astounding imagery I'm able to capture with it. :-)

It's 3CCD, shoots in true anamorphic 16:9, has good manual controls (real buttons, not touch screen), and the audio features are quite good (the XLR breakout box and included mic, for example).

BUT, it's not very good in low light (which you mentioned was important to you) and since you're a FILM MAJOR, you might not like the fact that it only shoots in 60i....and if you're looking to make student films with this, you really might want to look at a cam that can shoot in 24P, or even 30P.

Honestly, if I were wanting to do film-style work, I'd go for a Panasonic DVX100a or a Canon XL2 (or possibly a used XL1s). No, they may not have the pure "bang-for-the-buck" that the PDX-10 has, and yeah they might cost considerably more, but they might serve your needs better. If you can afford them, of course.

Barring that, I'd go for a Gl2 (even with it's potential problems) because it's affordable, can shoot in 30P, and of course like most cams can be outfitted with an anamorphic lense adapter to shoot true 16:9 as well as an aftermarket XLR adaptor.

Honestly, the GL2 was my #1 choice until I realized that 60i worked fine for MY needs (outdoor daylight action sports shooting for DVD release, *NOT* indy film making) and that the built-in audio, compact size, and the true 16:9 of the PDX10 just suited me perfectly. But as perfect as the PDX10 is for MY needs, it may not match up well with yours.


Also, have you considered a JVC HD1 or HD10? 16:9 & 720P/30 in HD might work for your needs, AND grow with you for a couple of years. I don't know much about those cams, but they might be worth looking in to.

:-)

Duane is right, for narrative work, you'd best go for a panasonic of a canon.
It's not that the sony ain't good cams, they are, but the colours are more cool, where those from the canon and panasonic a little bit more saturated, especcially the canon xl1s - which provides a more filmic look.
The sony are cams, better used for news work and event work, because of their very good low light capability and their absence of 24p or frame mode (30p, or in PAL land, 25p)
You can always deinterlace in post of course, but it's lots of rendering time, and you'll loose quality (not much, and in frame mode you also loose quality, but still...)

Don't these JVC cameras lack manual controls? Also, aren't they rather poor performers in low light? Tina indicated manual controls are important to her, and perhaps low light performance as well, so I don't think the JVC cameras would be a good fit for her.
I don't know about the Sony PDX10, but on my VX2000 I can tweak the picture to make it warmer and more saturated, so I wouldn't say that the Canons and Panasonic cameras have an advantage in this area. Of course, as mentioned the PDX10 lacks progressive scan capabilities, and is poor in low light, so one of the Canon or Panasonic cameras are probably better for her purposes.

All of your posts have been very helpful, and I thank you. I believe I'm going to go with the Panasonic DVX100a. Even though I think the Sony sounded great, and I've heard the images they produce are gorgeous, I think, as some have said, I'll need something more. When it comes to accessories, I'm going to buy a UV filter lens to protect the native lens, a battery pack and a decent tripod, and then add to it as needed to build up with decent accessories.

You're a great group here -- thank you!

Great decision, Tina! The DVX100a is probably the BEST camera for your needs as a film student. It should be the last SD camera you'll ever need to buy, certainly good enough for the next several years until you migrate to HD...and maybe by then there'll be an similarly-priced 1080/24p cam on the market!

Sorry about that, I don't have one, so maybe I wasn't the best judge to talk about them, just read very lots about them, so. My bad.

Tine, keep in mind that audio is at least half of video, and the biggest difference between pro and amateur is the quality of the audio. At least buy yourself a wired lav mic so you have one way to get decent sound right away. I have 5 mics in my location kit.

Be careful of DVX scams (buy from authorized reseller) and expect to pay around $3000 for a new one. Those deals for $1800-$2400 ARE too good to be true. And make sure you get the Barry book with your DVX or buy it separately. Learning curve on the DVX is a bit steeper than your average point and shoot camera. Stick with one brand/type of tape from day one (My choice is Panasonic MQ at $5 each).

Good Luck.

Best way to do this is to buy from a DVinfo sponsor; you'll be supporting the companies which support this site and they have all been chosen for their service and integrity:

http://www.dvinfo.net/sponsors/

That's okay. We are all here to help each other with our respective areas of knowledge, which is what makes this forum great.

DV camera with color/contrast equal to dSLR photos?
 

I've had my Canon mvx3i (optura Xi) for over a year, mostly family videos, but I am still disappointed with the color rendition, relative to high quality photos (shot on Nikon D70 with a good lens).

I can accept that the resolution cannot be compared, but in the same lighting conditions, the photos are usually very accurately colored (without enhancements), but the videos are very "under-colored" (bright colors are dull) and "over-contrasted" (whites are blown out). This is watching both photos and videos on the same screen or projector, without enhancements, in raw (nef) mode or avi mode.

It's as if I needed to increase the saturation of the colors in the videos, and decrease the contrast. I have always suspected that the single sensor was responsible for this... but still images taken with the DV camera were better than the videos (never as good as the photos from a dSLR), and this always puzzled me.

Yesterday, I realised that the 3-ccd entry-level panasonic from a friend had similar color and contrast issues...

Is this a limitation of the entry-level DV cameras? Would GL2 (XL2) type cameras solve these issues, and render images comparable to a dSLR photo camera?

Can the video from entry-level DV cameras be recovered in software (increase color saturation and decrease contrast in every frame)? (I use Pinnacle Studio 9+)

Or should I never expect to get equivalent image quality from consumer type DV cameras as a prosumer type dSLR?

Thanks
Christophe

Welcome to DVinfo Chris! You're never going to reach your goal I'm afraid. The really technical stuff is beyond me, but generally speaking you only have 256 levels of chrominance and 256 levels of luminance which is far, far less than you're seeing from your DSLR.

Having said this however, DV can look pretty good sometimes. Right now I'm working on the lighting design for an opera we're going to revive and am pulling stills from the video of each light cue. I also have digital still images taken with a Nikon 5700 for comparison. Of course the 5MP Nikon images are much sharper, but I actually like the color better in the video (it was a very dark, misty blue production of Les Pecheurs de Perles). But to get the video to where I wanted it I used Final Cut Pro's 3 way color corrector.

So I think you can get the saturated color you want with no problem, but there won't be as great a range as your DSLR. Now contrast is another matter. Even the digital still cameras have a hard time with the sort of high contrast inherent in our stage lighting, and video does an even worse job of that. Once you've blown out the highlights then the detail is just gone from those areas. Best strategy is to expose so the highlights aren't quite blown out, then when you edit you can use color correction to bring out the dark areas - up to a point. You start seeing a lot of noise in the dark areas if you boost them too much.

I don't know anything about your software, but it sounds limited. Look for a program that has more advanced color correction. On the PC I don't know what that would be, but I suspect Premiere and Vegas can do this.

At least you could improve your image in terms of resolution if you upgraded to some form of HD camera. Of course this will be considerably more expensive than your current model however. But the Sony HDR-HC1 might be something to look at, although the price is in the ~$2,000 range and you may be dismayed by its lack of true manual controls. The FX1 would probably be the next step up, and it offers a lot of image control but costs over $3,000.

Thanks for the advice.

Studio 9+ does have a color filter, and I am just now experimenting with increasing saturation and decreasing contrast, with levels adjusted scene-by-scene, and regenerating the AVI. It seems this should provide at least a useable video for my purposes (sharing with the larger family). I have not used this functionality to date! I'll let you know the results... does everyone always use this type of color correction?

I am a quality freak: I refuse to generate DVD quality mpeg, and image quality is critical otherwise the audience loses interest (and walks away with a headache!). I just store AVI on removable harddisks with a computer and a large LCD, and use a projector when needed.

So I was concerned that my mvx3i was the limiting factor, and wanted to know if I have to borrow someone's money to buy a better camera... clearly the HD cameras would have better resolution, but the image quality is more important to me today.

The image sensor and algorithms is clearly the critical part of the camera, but there are no controls for contrast or saturation real-time... do other cameras do that? I always use the manual exposure controls, but that's it...

All thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

A basic color control that lets you adjust hue and saturation will help I'm sure. But I was speaking of something which (I think) is a little more sophisticated. Here's an example (although a little dated) of the 3-way color corrector in Final Cut Pro:

http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_cc_dft_dvd.html

Some of the newer cameras have options to adjust the gamma curves and other settings to get greater exposure latitude (so you get less blown-out highlights). Cameras like the DVX100, XL2, and Z1 have this I believe.

2- Your computer monitor may be showing your video a little weird. Sony Vegas for example:
If you use the Sony DV codec (the default), blacks get mapped to 16-235 RGB. So if you leave the lens cap on your camera and close the iris, it'll record a black that shows up as 16 16 16 (RGB) on your computer monitor, which is a greyish black.

A broadcast monitor will give you an accurate idea of what your video looks like, although it may be hard to compare things with DSLR pictures.

Not sure what your video editing program does.

3- Saturation can easily be boosted in post, as can contrast (although this may bring up noise a little). A color curves filter is the best way to do this... Vegas has it, PPro has something like it, FCP doesn't have it (but you can get Nattress' G Film for $100). Some cameras can be tweaked to deliver higher contrast as well as saturation.

Color accuracy is dependent on your camera and its iris/exposure settings- I find that on a PD100, aggressive exposure (clipping be damned) leads to more saturated and accurate/vivid colors.

Exposure latitude is dependent on the camera. More exposure latitude means you see more detail in highlight and shadow areas instead of clipping.

How do you white balance?

I bought the proper cards from a video store (white balance card, 18% grey card for exposure) and found that made things much easier, and gave a far more accurate picture.

I don't know about the mvx3i but the Panasonic GS400 has a few settings that can change the picture for the best. For more information go and see this topic : http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45748

I am very happy with the picture of my GS400 now althought I sometimes tweak the colors and contrast in post.

Again thanks for the advice.

The pictures taken with the DV camera are fine if you have no choice, but cannot be compared to a dSLR, and no amount of jpeg adjustments (like those available on panasonic gs400) will ever be able to compare to shooting raw (or nef) and adjusting the image on a PC later. But my questions relate to DV videos, not stills. Thanks anyway.

I haven't figured out white balance for DV yet... I'll need to read the manual I guess! Usually I have found that the white balance is not a problem on the films (unlike dSLR, for which white balance is quite difficult)

Getting greater exposure lattitude would ne nice, so it's good to hear that it is available on more expensive models... on the mvx3i, I am constantly adusting the exposure manually, and using the "zebra" to highlight blow-outs and trying to reduce these without getting the zones of interest too dark.

The avi I regenerated after adjusting contrast and saturation is significantly better than the raw avi, but still a far cry from dSLR pictures (even without any adjustments on the pictures)... maybe the problem is the 256-levels limitation of DV as mentioned here... or maybe I need a better color filter software with more options?

Are you guys happy with the color / contrast from more expensive cameras? Is it significantly better than mid-range cameras like my mvx3i?

What I mean is, can we hope to get close to the TV or movies color / contrast quality with these amateur-ish DV cameras? I see "near-broadcast quality" on some cameras... Is this what is meant? How near is it?

A family relative on the other side of the world, uses Nikon dSLR for photos, panasonic GS-400 (3 ccd model) for quick videos, and XL2 for high-quality personal videos... Is this what you guys do? Unfortunately I have no way to compare his results... but I believe he does not spend any time to "fix" his videos.


For better color accuracy, Glenn suggests "agressive exposure"... does that mean I should blow-out highlights in favor of zones of interest? Isn't that the opposite of most advice, which suggests under-exposing slightly and recovering detail through software later?

Thanks
Christophe

In my opinion, the best stuff out there (features and national commercials) look good because of:
shot on 35mm film - greatest exposure latitude, which other formats can't touch. Shallow depth of field too (video needs 35mm adapter to get the same results).
talented and experienced people
lighting
color grading on a system like a Da Vinci with a professional colorist (it's all they do). While you can get comparable results with DV using tools like Final Touch SD or Nattress G Film + Shake or Vegas + Combustion, you won't necessarily have the talent and experience as someone who specializes in color grading.

Yes. I'm not sure if it increases color accuracy as I don't have a good way of testing that. But colors do seem to look more vivid. Saturation definitely increases, at least with the Sony PD100. You can test this with your own camera.

Yes. I used to believe that you should be conservative with exposure... but aggressive exposure does have its benefits.
Without any color correction, the aggressively exposed image will be more saturated.
After color correction, you can match brightness and saturation. But, the colors will still be different (check this on a vectorscope... the hue of colors is different). Also, increasing brightness with make noise more apparent in the dark areas.

Which Camera should I buy?
 

Hi there,

My name is David, thanks for taking the time to read my enquiry.

I am going to Asia in October to work in and around Refugee camps. I want to take with me a Digital Video Camera so that I can record the plight of the people there, their story etc. Also to tell the story of my 75 year old father who goes there to help stop Malaria and TB by providing equipment, medicine and advice…anyway

I have been looking at the new range of digital video cameras, happy that prices are lower because I am not rich; but confused by the lack of features in some cameras. Of course price IS a major factor; less than NZ$2000 (and lower than that if possible) but disregarding price a little for the moment:

I decided I would look for 1) a 3ccd camera (better colour etc), 2) the best optical zoom, and 3) a DVD-RW drive (hard drives are probably too expensive for me). I was of course mindful of other things like night shooting ability, colour in the viewfinder, stability when filming etc but the 3 main ingredients were what I was looking for.

Do you think I could find one? NO. There is a 3ccd, with 10x optical zoom and TAPE drive! I guess someone must have an excess of tape drives, why would you have a 3ccd camera with a tape drive, rather than at the same time making the recording media more up to date? I guess there may well be a very legitimate reason.

It was pointed out to me by a salesperson at a shop today ( 5 shops, one person actually new something) that JVC have just put out the GZ-MC500, 3ccd, 4gb microdrive, 10 x optical – the price unfortunately is NZ3500 so a bit out of my price range. I also read a review of it that said it doesn’t have a microphone jack, and that its viewfinder and low light performance are mediocre, and that though the 3ccd is great for still pictures it doesn’t do moving pictures so well.

So, PLEASE HELP is there a digital video camera that has 1) 3ccd (preferably three 1/4" CCD's that are optimized for video. No still camera needed), 2) non-tape (DVD-RW?/card) recording. 3) optical zoom of at least 10x. 4) decent audio. 5) mike in and perhaps an ie1394 port. ????

Or can you suggest something that would work for me. I need the best quality I can get for the least money obviously because I would like to be able to edit footage on my computer (Avid) and maybe make a doco or two.

PLEASE ADVISE

Thanks