For your price range the A1U is a good choice, but not great in low light. You could stretch a little upwards and go for the Canon XH A1 / Sony FX7 series. Or maybe go down the chain to the Canon HV30, which might get you closer to the film look, since you could buy the most imporant "film look" tools - decent lighting and sound equipment ... and maybe a good writing, acting, and/or directing class.

Keep in mind editing HDV might add some overhead to your editing workflow: money + time.

"For your price range the A1U is a good choice, but not great in low light."

Again, I haven't worked with the A1U, but the Z1U and V1U take excellent pictures in low lighting, in my opinion. I've seen test results comparing low light footage from the DV generation, and I believe that the Sony did the best. I own a Canon, work with 2 Sony cameras and a few Panasonic, and from my experience the Z1U and V1U take the best footage in low light.

As far as whether or not the A1U and the Z/V1U have the same imaging hardware... I believe they do, but I haven't confirmed that. Those are my two bits!

The A1U is a single chip camera (1/3"), the Z1U has 1/3" chips and the V1U has 1/4" chips.

So the V1U and Z1U have 3 chips, of their respective sizes?

It says on one site (below) that the Z1U used CCD sensors, whereas the V1U and A1U use the CMOS sensor. CMOS sensors don't do as well in low-light, but also have different properties that are quite desirable. Looks like the A1U isn't going to be quite as good in low light as the Z1U (the Sony I've spent more time with in low light).

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ca...eo_sony_hvrau/

On CMOS: (there's a section comparing it to CCD sensors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

Get your hands on a few of these, take footage with each, and see what you like. That's really the way to know what will work for you.

Yes, they are 3-chip cameras. The V1U and A1U have CMOS chips, while the Z1U has CCDs. The Z1U therefore would be the best under low light. However, the differences between all the HDV cameras is small when it comes to that. It takes light to make movies. If you're shooting TV news or something where you may not be able to light, then a larger 2/3" chip camera would be best.

Which camcorder would be the best for use with the workprinter xp?
 

Hello, being new here I have enjoyed reading the many posts; and now I have a few questions-

I wish to transfer many old super 8 and 8mm films via the workprinter xp. In order to use the workprinter I need a Camcorder with a FireWire output ( iLink ) This seems to cut down my options on which camcorder I should use.

The camcorder must have the following: at least a 12x optical lens & Firewire

What I dont know is if using a ' new ' HD Camcorder will be of any help or if I should stay with a ' Good ' SD camcorder.

My budget puts me at $2000.00 -

Any ideas?

Hi Mark,
Welcome to the forums.

As far as needing a camcorder that is equipped with firewire, just about every tape based entry level-to-semi-pro camcorder produced in the last several years will have a firewire port (also called iLink or iEEE1394) Some of the more recent exceptions might include the lousy mini-DVD camcorders as well as some of the hard drive and flash-based units - many of which will have USB 2.0 ports which will not work for your intended purposes.

As far as the firewire port, your selection landscape will be pretty vast.

As far as your HD or SD question, here is a quote from Roger's FAQ page on the Moviestuff site:
---------------

Q: "Will the WorkPrinter units work with my HD camera?

A: Not at this time, though you can use the HD camera in the SD mode. We are working towards an HD solution that is practical but are waiting to see if the market conforms to one delivery standard."
---------------

The FAQ doesn't go into any detail about WHY it won't work with the HD camera, but I can guess on a few points.

The resolution capacities of an average 1080i HDV camcorder more naturally conforms to the theoretical resolve of the 8mm film frame. But in my opinion, from the many many hundreds of home movie reels I've seen and/or restored, I really doubt the increase in pixels is really going to be of much benefit to the quality of the captured image. (Unless the 8mm was exceptionally shot and well preserved.) - (I'm probably going to prove myself wrong with this in due time.) With larger gauge film such as 16mm, the difference in quality between SD and HD would likely be much more evident.

I've been transferring film for a couple of years now with the Workprinter and my Canon XL2 in SD 4:3. I am constantly impressed with the quality of the transfers, which so far has always far exceeded the quality of some of the more traditional consumer level transfer methods, and always looks much better than anyone ever remembers seeing the footage projected against their living room walls in past decades.

In any case, with the Workprinter system, you are not actually recording the captured frames with the camcorder itself. So the HDV issue is irrelevant. But the capture software that is designed to work with the Workprinter captures in SD (.avi on PC, and .mov or .dv on Mac). These applications capture in 4:3 which is also appropriate for 8mm and Super 8.

HDV camcorders I've seen shoot in 16:9, which presents issues with the 4:3 Super 8 and 8mm source content.

I have read about a company that uses a Moviestuff device to capture to true HD via HD-SDI, but they indicated the need for modified gear and I'm not certain of the methods they are using for frame-by-frame capture.

If you are planning on doing some other types of productions and want to be future proof for at least a few years yet, you could still consider a Hi-Rez cam, but you might need to look into one that offers a 4:3 SD option to make sure it will work well with your Workprinter. (Despite regular protestations from recent HDV adopters, SD videography will continue to be around for several years.)

You can always give Roger a call (at Moviestuff ) if you need more accurate and up-to-date info on this topic. He often answers the phone himself and is very generous with his time by answering any questions you may have.

If you opt to buy a Standard Definition camcorder, there are some great older models that are well-loved in the industry - and you could get some great deals within your price range, especially if you get a good 2nd-hand unit.

Some older trusty models to consider might include the Sony PD150 or PD170 as well as the VX2100. There is also the widely popular DVX100 series. A little smaller form factor can be found in the Canon GL2, but it is also a great cam. Any of these will provide great results if properly used in conjunction with the Workprinter.

I've shot with the DVX, the PD170 and the GL2, and I love them all. I really love my XL2, but that model is usually priced above your stated budget range.

What you'll really make sure to look for is a nice quality 3-chip camcorder with a great piece of glass and a good complement of manual controls. There are other camera that I am sure will work well for your purposes and give astounding results, but I can't really comment beyond just the models I've used myself.

Hope this helps.

Have fun.

-Jon

Must say I've not found the aspect ratio difference to be a problem when I transfer 3:4 film footage (Standard-8 and Super-8) to HDV. On the timeline I simply add black bars left and right of the 4:3 image, so that on an HD TV the picture will maintain the correct aspect ratio.

Of course modern upscaling DVD players will make an SD transfer of the film look pretty good, but a genuine transfer to HDV is even better.

tom.

Hello -

thank you both for your quick replies.

Jon, I had spoken with Roger about a month ago prior to ordering my workprinter. We covered many topics ( it was a lot of info in a very short amount of time on the phone :-)) I did not ask him specifically about HD Cameras - had been reading up in various Internet Forums and that is why I figured I would ask here in the Forum. There are a lot of workprinter customers out there, but as far as recommended cameras - rather little feedback..

The newer cameras seem to be going away ( from what I have seen ) from firewire to usb ( in the under 2000.- price category,)

I had been leaning towards the GL2 ( canon has a great rebate on it right now ) because it seems to offer the best deal for the money on lens and options- as I said I just wanted to ask some more experienced users for their opinion.

I am really anxious to see how well this whole set up works!

Mark

That makes perfect sense, more pixel data to work well for a better upscaling.

Does the capture software work well with the incoming 16:9? (Cinecap or CaptureMate?) It would be interesting to note why the FAQ indicates incompatibility with HD.

-Jon

I need a Camera!!!!!
 

I have been trying to decide what to buy for a while! I need something I can shoot fast motin with in low light, and still get great image quality, I would preffer something I can change lenses as well. I have looked at Canon's stuff and think I may be stuck shooting standard deff to avoid the horrible gop issues with high deff compression. does anyone have any advise? I shoot lots of racing videos, I would also like to shoot nature and scenic videos. I plan to shoot s short documentary in the future as well.

I use a PD170 to shoot racing videos, due to the low light capabilities.
advantages: fairly cheap since its 4:3 native, and not HD
Disadvantages: its 4:3 native, and not HD

Dear Patrick,

I shoot drag boat racing videos. Our team does the liquid quarter mile in under 5 seconds with a clocked speed of over 248 mph (after coasting the last 300 feet!). In order to keep up with the boat I have to do some fast pans.

The Canon XL H1, with the long GOP. works very well for this.

Long GOP allows for a high level of detail and for a high degree of compression. There are proper techniques for editing long GOP's, but it is desirable in many cases to convert the ".mpg" to an ".avi" to remove the long GOP structure.

Experts that have actually used this camera do not describe it as "horrible long-GOP".

There are tremendous advantages when shooting HD.

For example, with the high resolution that the XL H1/ XH A1/ XH G1 / etc. provides you with the ability to zoom in, in post, to get the actual framing you want. This is a huge advantage over shooting in HD.

Unless you are a perfect cameraman, it is difficult to zoom in and correctly keep your fast moving subject tight in the frame. Doing it in post works great.
If your target is a DVD, then you have plenty of resolution, even after you zoom in and pan in post.

I can testify to the low light capabilities of the pd170. Compared to a Canon HV20, the pd170 had about a 20 ire, which neatly works out to be 20%, difference.

Now, that's very much like comparing toadstools to gold fish but its something to consider.

Hi Jonathan,

this thread has jumped around a bit! :-)
based upon what I have read here in the forum and in other areas online I will be purchasing a canon GL2 for my work with the workprinter xp. I have been looking into which raid set up I wil be using with my macbook pro and have decided to go with the Sonnet Fusion F2 external raid - according to sonnet it should be fast enough -
Somewhere here in the thousands of posts I had read that one can read the personal classifieds when one has been a member for 30 days... but I am still not getting access - or I cant find them in this column.
At any rate, I am looking for a good canon.
At the moment an HD Camera will not be of any help, because the capture software ( at least the way I understood it ) is not capable of processing the frames as HD.

Which one is best for web casting?
 

Hello All

Greetings from India.

I have read almost all these post and I am very impressed and gratefull for the wealth of information that can be found in this forum.

BRIEF DEsCRIPTION OF WHAT I DO
I am video producer making 30 sec informative videos for the web. There are a couple of directory listing company's that give a free 30 sec video to all company's and individuals who sing up for their service. SO whenver a client signs up, I get the call to go and shoot this video for this client and the directory listing comapny pays me. I basically have been shooting on Sony PD 170 , edit it on Final Cut pro, compress it and upload it to the web.

I use three to four teams, to film atleast 20 clients every day. These teams consist of a camera person and an assistant and they go on a motor bike with the camera, tripod and a basic hand held light.

My question

WHICH CAMERA IS BETTER SUITED FOR THE WEB?

I DONT REALLY NEED A BRODCAST QUALITY CAMERA TO SHOOT THESE VIDEOS AS I HAVE TO EVNTUALLY COMPRESS THEM FOR THE WEB.

Is there another video camera that is better sutied for the web?

Appreciate some light on this matter

Regards
Arun Balchandar

Really.. any camera that allows you to dump into an editable format in your editing software of choice. DV is tried and true, if you need higher res hit HDV, etc.

Since your quality limited (compress to web), invest a little less in the camera and more in mic/sound and a light kit (doesn't need to be fancy - just know how to use it).

Sounds like you've got a pretty workable system already, but it may be showing its age. To spin a phrase.. If it's broke, feel free to fix it. =)

If your camera is in good condition, it's probably perfect for what you're doing. No need to change unless it dies.

Thank you
 

Hi Patrick and Bill

Thanks for yur suggestions. I went ahead and bought a Sony VX2100 to save some money for accesories and light kit. I plant to rent a Sony PD 170 as well.

thanks
Arun Balchandar
Chennai, India

Canon HF10 questions
 

Hi DV folks,

I’m looking to upgrade my current video setup, and -- not being a professional at all -- could use some advice, Background / usage: I’m a high school dance teacher and mostly use video for documentation of my student performances (as well as in class - instant feedback). So I need something with pretty decent low-light capabilities, as I shoot in a darkened theater a lot (although the stage itself is well-lit).

For the last 5 years I’ve been working with a Sony DCR-TRV38 DV recorder. It seems to have a good lens and I’ve appreciated the quality of video I get in the theater (especially for home-video consumer model). But it doesn’t seem to be as dependable as I would like -- had to take it in for repair already a few years back, and now the sound is often severely corrupted -- so I figured it’s time to upgrade.

I have sworn by Canon for my still cameras for years, not least because the engineering seems dependable (have never had any kind of repair problem). So I would like to get a Canon for video as well. I have read a little about the newer recorders that shoot to internal flash drive + memory card instead of digital video tape, and wondered if that might be the way to go -- would undoubtedly save some time on the capture end of things, I think. I read a couple of good reviews of Canon’s HF10, and I’m just about ready to jump

So, here are my main questions (sorry if this post is getting awfully long!):
1. Stupid/ignorant amateur question first: if I go with a flash drive/memory card camera, how will the video download onto my computer -- is there still a real-time capture process, or is it more direct (I’m envisioning the way my still photos automatically download as JPEG files)? Is there anything about this system I haven’t thought of that I need to know about? I use Final Cut Express for editing, and I see that the latest version (to which I need to upgrade anyway) does support AVCHD...

2. Specifics -- my main concern, after reading the reviews of the HF10, is that apparently the higher # of pixels does mean lower light-sensitivity... I worry that that might be a problem in the theater -- but again, I’m not really comparing the performance against professional models, or even the bet consumer model on the market right now, but against my 5-year-old Sony TRV38 -- could the low-light performance actually be worse than a 5-year-old camera (given the jumps in technology since then)? I’m looking for a step up from my Sony, but I’m a teacher not a professional so a high-end consumer model rather than a professional camera is really still what I need, I think.

3. Anything else I haven’t thought of that should be glaring me in the face?

Thanks for reading this long post, I’d appreciate any advice!

Hello Avilee and welcome to DVinfo!

You'll just pop the flash memory out of the camera, pop it into a flash memory card reader on your computer (which you probably already have from doing still photography) and transfer your files! Many cameras are also equipped with USB for transfer directly from the camera, but that can be slower than using a dedicated flash drive. Easy to do and you should be able to jump straight to editing if you've got the proper software.

You're correct, higher number of pixels does not mean better low-light sensitivity. Generally speaking, consumer, and even many prosumer, grade HD cameras have much worse low-light sensitivity than SD cameras. I've not used the HF10 myself, but from what I've read, it does have a number of manual controls, including manual shutter and iris, which should allow you to make the most of what light is available. Your low-light performance will probably be worse than what you have now, but the benefit is that what you will get with an HD camera will be much more crisp than your current SD camera which means that even in lower light, your outlines and features should be much easier to see clearly. I feel your frustrations with low-light and dance. I do a lot of the video work for the dance classes at the college where I work and the instructor will frequently use very little light on the stage, even going so far as doing silhouetting, that even with a good SD camera like the GL2 or the VX2000 I had trouble getting enough light without ruining it through the noise of the gain. All that said, I wouldn't let that scare me away from making the move to HD. In fact, it didn't. I'm now using an XHA1 (just got it this summer) and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with the dance stuff.

Maybe. Have you given much thought to your workflow with a tapeless camera? Even though they're quickly coming down in price, flash memory is still too expensive to really archive well. Computer hard drives are too finicky and prone to mechanical failure to be a reliable archival method. With HD video, archiving to DVD is time-consuming and requires a lot of DVDs (unless you can get DVD-9s or Blu-Ray). If you're shooting stuff that goes into the computer to edit, out to DVD, and is done with, then you should be okay. But if you want to be able to archive your work (I imagine you keep tapes of your dance recitals, etc.), then you're going to have to figure that out. It's not a major thing, just something to think about.

Also, editing AVCHD material is much more machine-intensive than editing DV material. If you've got a fairly new Mac, you should be okay, but I've read that for editing AVCHD you are best off with a multi-core machine and several GB of memory. I'm editing HDV with the Canon XHA1 on a quad-core with 4GB of Ram and it runs okay, though I can still tell a difference between it and DV, even with DV done on a much slower machine.

Definitely don't let HD scare you--the footage you'll get will blow you away! Have fun!

Hi David,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply... Since I posted all those questions, I discovered that Final Cut only supports AVCHD technology on Intel-based Macs (damn!). Since I'm not quite ready to throw over my trusty G4 machine (or learn a whole new editing program), I'm considering going with the HV30 instead (the equivalent to the HF10 but using DV) -- which does have a slightly better sensor and is highly rated by at least one reviewer... Maybe I'll try for the solid-state camera in a few years, when they're a little less new and I need a new computer anyhow. In the meantime, your XH A1 sounds pretty tempting -- I'm not sure I'm ready for a professional recorder yet, but I may take a look when I actually get out there...

thanks again for your help.
Avilee

If you are going to work in HD, then the time for a new computer is now.

Working with HD is extremely taxing to your computer- even if you have a brand spanking new 8 core Mac Pro.

Seriously, any Macbook Pro (including the oldest Core 1 processor based units) will dramatically outperform your G4 for HD editing.

Heck they are close to on par with my Dual 2.7GHz G5 for most tasks, but they are often faster for HD post production due to the newer feature set of the hardware. (New SSE and GPU instructions) So even with a much newer machine the laptops are an overall upgrade for me.

Your statement might be true for professionals making a living with video, their time is money... but for some people here on the forum editing HDV is just a hobby. I am editing HDV on a 4 year old plain office Dell P4 @ 3GHz with 2GB of RAM and it's just fine.

There is a huge difference between your relatively modern Dell P4 and a G4.

The very newest G4 was released in June 2003. The fastest G4 available is a dual CPU at 1.42GHz, released January 2003. It has a 167MHz bus, uses PATA drives (with compatibility issues). The fastest CPU available is 1.8GHz.

Sad to say, because I am an Apple fanboy, but your P4 has aged better than this gentleman's G4. Apple's transition to Intel has really changed the life span of those machines.

Like I said, even the most modest Intel Mac will seriously outperform his G4 for HD video. I talked about a Macbook Pro... but I've worked with HD on the dual core Macbook and Intel Mac Mini, and by comparison to ANY G4 its buttery smooth on those machines.

So, in closing- even for a hobbyist who will never make a dime- I recommend an upgrade from any G4 or older PowerPC Mac to an Intel Mac that supports the minimum requirements for Final Cut Studio 2. While you are at it though, I'd make sure it was Color Compatible too (See "Color Specific Requirements" at the link above.)

Most Intel iMacs and Macbook Pros fit the bill. While they would be an upgrade froma G4, stay away from "Core 1" Intel Macs, go for the Core 2 units instead, and definitely get dual core.

There is little difference between a 5 year old G4 and a 4 year old P4. The G4 can easily be updated to SATA drives if necessary or use external Firewire 800 drives for HD. The real limitation will be the software. The current versions of Final Cut Studio, iMovie and Final Cut Express all require a G5 of faster and OS 10.4.11 Newer cameras may not be supported by the "old" software so you're in a Catch-22.

Updating old machines may be a case of throwing good money after bad. Upgrading drives, video cards, old software etc. can easily cost hundreds and dollars. If the machine has electrical issues you may not be able to get the parts etc. for an older G4. So ultimately you'd be best served by getting the least expensive iMac (currently $1199). You would also get the necessary software for newer cameras. Apple offers discounts to students and employees of most larger corporations, city, county, state, federal employees etc.

Just as a test I edited a video for a local Country Club/Yacht Club using iMovie '06 HD and it had no problem with the footage from a Sony HDR-HC1. Many people are not aware that the G4's had better FireWire implementations until the last of the G5's.

Wow -- I had fallen out of touch with this discussion for a while, in the heat of getting ready for the new school year -- and now I find I have quite a lot to think about! Thank you all for your considered advice -- the next time I will really need to get excellent footage is in the spring, so I will be thinking during the fall about whether I'm ready to go ahead and upgrade to a new Mac, and then get the AVCHD camera...

(just by the way to Alexander, I'm not a "gentleman" -- watch out for those assumptions when you find a name you haven't seen before!)

thanks again,
Avilee

I disagree that the G4 is easily updated, mostly because of parts availability.

While its technically true that the Firewire implementation was better on G4's than early G5's... the difference is moot in my experience. I've never encountered a flaw on any of my G5 machines with any firewire device on any port. How do you beat that?

This however is all irrelevant because I agree with Jeff's point that the cost of any upgrades to make the machine serviceable will be sufficient to purchase an Intel Mac of some sort with far superior performance. Also no upgrade will ever gain you the software compatibility Jeff rightly brings up.

Avilee,

I apologize for my confusion and for any offense to your dignity caused by my error.

Okay, looking in on this again after another long break, and re-read the specifics about the OS & Final Cut. I did have my computer in to the shop over the summer (on account of an optical drive problem), and had them install OS 10.4.11, specifically so I could upgrade to the newest version of FCE. So the software would not be a problem, it seems to be working just fine on my machine so far (with footage from my old Sony, of course).

So, here's my dilemma -- I'm really attracted by the idea of the solid-state camera, it just seems to me that the fewer moving parts to go wrong the better... but on the other hand, trashing a perfectly good computer goes completely against my basic ethical system (that's a big part of how the world got in the mess we're in, but that's another story). I was also told by one of the techs at our local Mac place that he thought the AVCHD cameras were a little too new and maybe not quite ready for prime time, and if it were him he would go with the equivalent DV camera... but of course his specialty is Macs, not cameras, so I don't know how trustworthy that might be.

So here's my latest thought -- it might be handy to have a really functional laptop anyway (my iBook is from the fruit-colored clamshell era, going on nine years old, I think, and I haven't really used it in years) -- so i might consider getting a nice Intel MacBook (with enough memory etc.) just to work with video, and keep the desktop for everything else. But before I take that plunge, I'd like to know if what the Mac guy said had any basis in fact -- are the AVCHD cameras still too new, would I be better off gong for the well-reviewed DV model? Or is my thinking about the virtues of solid-state technology closer to the mark?

thanks much,
Avilee

ps. to Alexander -- no offense taken, I've been called lots worse by my (teenage) students, as I'm sure you can imagine!

My AVCHD Canon is flat out impressive - I pop the card into a small USB adaptor and iMovie picks it right up. In FCE I do a transfer and log - no issues.

Work flow is fairly fast on my MacPro Quad.

Beginner Camera
 

Hi, I am currently a film student, and I am starting to get interested in purchasing my first camera. I'm still slightly new to all the technical aspects but I know I'm looking for something that can shoot in at least full HD and that records onto SD cards (or some other digital format that isn't tape or film). I have been looking at the RED Scarlett and am very intrigued but am curious as to what else is out there. I'm looking for a price range around $3000 - $6000 and probably won't actually purchase a camera for at least a year.

What i really want is to know what i should be looking for in a camera, and the strengths and weaknesses of cameras in my price range. I want to use this camera to make independent films primarily, but I am really just looking for knowledge right now, so please enlighten me.

Why not tape? I'm just curious, because digital formats take a lot of space to archive the footage, and tape is way cheaper than a few terabytes of hard drives. Not to dissuade you, but something to consider.

Well, I went tapeless mainly to get away from the potential for mechanical problems with the tape transport mechanism. I've had a few tape and tape/transport problems at very inopportune times and when Canon came out with an AVCHD flash media cam I could live with, I made the change.

So far I haven't seen the need for "a few terabytes of hard drives. A pair of 500GB external USB drives with one "mirroring" the other works just fine, when those get about 75% full I'll pick up another pair (maybe 1TB drives will come down to the price I paid for the other two by then.

because tape is becoming more and more obsolete. The cost of digital storage goes down each day. I just don't like tape for capturing purposes as well as defectability. I would just rather assume to keep it digital from the start, seeing as its all going to end up on my hard drive one way or another. cut out the middle man.

Currently the best bang for bucks is the EX1 or EX3, but if you're not thinking of buying for a year, I'd hold off and look that what's around then.

I wouldn't call tape obsolete for a few years yet, even tapeless production can be required to be backed up by production insurance onto a tape format designed for recording data.

You can get frame drops and other errors using hard drives on shots, so I'd never say defects will never exist whatever means you record on. Although, the larger VT formats are a lot less likely to have problems than the smaller DV tapes.

I think you're referring to data storage rather than digital storage, since all the main tape video formats are now digital.

Hi Peter.............
 

I would suggest you go out now and buy yourself an el cheapo HD "dinky cam" (any flavour you like) and learn first hand how to work a camera.

Want to know which one? Search the DVinfo forums.

Want to know why so and so doesn't work? Search the DVinfo forums.

Want to know why your editing sucks? Search..................

When you can stitch together something that people can watch for more than 2 minutes without running from the room or throwing up, THEN ask about a "big boys toy".

You have a whole year to learn before that day arrives, use it wisely.


CS

Chris makes an excellent point, better to have a 700-1000 paperweight than a 3000-6000 paperweight.

There's no sense in spending big $ for a camera when you are starting out - the camera does not grant you talent or skill, and you won't develop skill or find out if you have talent unless you HAVE A CAMERA, and use the blooming thing every chance you get. The bigger better gear will likely come to you if you show promise...

Get one of the HF series Canons or a Sony CX12 or better yet an SR11/12 (at least it has a viewfinder...), and start shooting/editing/practicing. You're looking at a 700-1000 investment in a camera that shoots great HD under most situations, and most of the guys around here have one or more of these little critters running around for B cam or crash cam or whatever. You're not waiting around trying to figure out which camera to get (which can be an infinite quest...), and you've got something to start honing your skills without breaking the bank. Worst case you decide you'd rather be a banker doctor or lawyer or something a year from now, and you can sell the cam for most of what you paid for it... or take video of the kids or whatever!

Well i'm not exactly new to the field. I just don't own my own camera yet. I took 3 years of video in high school and i'm currently a sophmore in university. I bought an Aiptek action HD this summer to hold me over until i buy my real camera. I also currently have access to a sony xd cam which is a friend of mines. I'm familiar with basic camera form, and operations and whatnot, as well as editing (I have adobe premiere pro, after effects, and final cut pro 6.0.4) What i'm currently lacking, is all the up to date latest and greatest of the tech talk. What new features are being built into cameras, what should i have my eyes open for. I know that there is no way of actually getting a solid answer as to what camera i will want in a year, but i'm not asking for a clear cut answer, rather just a general fill me in. Perhaps i will need to spend more time lurking this site, however i have done that for awhile, and just have not been able to get it all summed up, i might find a little bit here and there, but no unifying info. So please, educate me in the ways of digital cinema.

Hi again, Peter.............
 

Well, I have some bad news for you.

The breadth of the video market is such that any single responder here on DVinfo would require about 5,000 pages to bring you up to date with everything that is going on out there.

DVinfo houses a good deal of that 5,000 pages, but, guess what?

Yep, you have to read it.

Not that any one person here will, or would want to, write said 5,000 pages.

Start at the top and work your way down, my friend.

There is no easy way to do this unless you want "Do this, Do that, Stop whining"

If you cannot fathom an answer having digested said 5,000 pages, you're either never going to "get it" or just ain't asking the right questions.

Bottom line however, is this:

Cinema is NOT ABOUT THE GEAR!

The first movies were made with equipment not far removed from a Box Brownie.

Stunning movies have been made, and still are, with the most basic stuff you could possibly imagine.

Knowing what the latest bells and whistles are bolted onto/ into the latest video cameras WILL NOT enhance anything you make, if you can make anything worth watching at all.

I strongly suggest you educate yourself and not require others to do it for you.


CS

Peter, you OWN a camera, probably not the best, but you should already know its limitations. There are better "consumer" HD cameras than what you've got, so the upgrade itch has got to be pretty strong...

The problem is that the tech is moving very fast, there has been a BIG jump from SD to HD tha's exploded in the last couple years. New cameras come onto the market every couple months, with new "features" (most probably marketing, but some are "real").

Maybe a methodology for ingesting the info here might help...

Start with the model #'s of the cameras currently available in your price range, read and follow the threads on those cameras for a while - the structure of DVi is very well set up to do that, with logical divisions to price range and brand/model. I guarantee that when something new comes around, if you are reading here, you'll be one of the first to know about it - typically well before anyone else. By the time your projected purchase comes around, there WILL be new choices, either available or maybe worth waiting for.

Spend the time to learn about sensor size and type, lenses, storage formats, and whatever manual controls each camera offers, plus any "special" proprietary features of specific cameras.

Bottom line, there's not a LOT beyond the basics, how each camera performs those basic functions, and the end results. The tech gets better, the images get better, but you can still make drek with it if the nut on the back of the camera is not properly adjusted... try to keep in mind, it's not the camera, it's the operator, and don't get too caught up in WHAT you are shooting with.

It's a hammer, build something with the one you've got. If a brighter shinier hammer comes along and will help you work faster or get a better end result, and you can afford it or otherwise justify the purchase, get it...

Hope that analogy will make some sense and rip away some of the technobabble.