Prosumer Digital Camcorders

[3Memos]

You haven't seen JVC HDV footage taken by a competent shooter. Another difference between the JVC and Sony HDV offerings is Sony set up their cameras to be easy for novices to take decent video, whereas with the JVC you need a bit of skill. The advantage in that case goes to Sony when you're talking about ignorant users. The one-CCD vs. 3-CCD issue is of little consequence in the right hands.

JVC markets their HD1 in the consumer space. How many consumers take the time to block and light their birthday parties? 1CCD uses a color filter wheel and the video results in poor saturation and prone to highlight washout. No consumer is going to underexpose their footage and latter apply gamma curves to the video in post so they can get away from low latitude imagery.

As for low-light performance, if you call yourself a professional and you aren't lighting your sets properly there are other lines of work more suitable. The Sonys can shoot in low light, but if you know what you're doing you wouldn't need to.

So you are saying event videographers, documentary shooters, news shooters, and aerial shooters are not professionals because they don't light their sets? Nice try, but I'm beginning to wonder if you ever shot professional video in different situations.

Paper comparisons of the two cameras are of little consequence because it's very much apples and oranges between 720p and 1080i. If the Sonys shot 720p or 1080 24p I'd like them. I prefer the progressive look. You can't argue away interlace artifacts.

Anyone who knows their way around a post-production house can tell you that 1080i converts down to 720P easily. It's been done since HD was invented. Sure, lots of people prefer the progressive look. Interlaced is used in news casts, and sporting events, where the interlaced artifacts you hate so much are required to display smooth motion at 1/60th of a second and give the viewer a sense of reality and immediacy.

 

[Rod Rod]

H.264 is an output standard and not meant for editable video. OTOH, HDV is the standard for consumer-level videography in high-definition.

This is half correct. HDV is also an output standard not really meant for editable video. HDV is an MPEG-2 transport stream, after all.

iMovie HD, FCE HD and the third-party helper apps available for FCP all transcode HDV to an editable form. iMovie HD and FCE HD do the transcoding in a way that the user doesn't notice, and transcodes to camera-original format after editing if you wish to print to video. The FCP solutions do the transcoding in front of you.

 

[Chaszmyr]

I think I'm ready to make my decision, I just have one last concern. The FX1 does not have XLR inputs... Does that mean you're going to have noticeable quality loss on any sort of XLR microphone because an adapter is needed? And exactly what kind of adapter would be needed? or is it more complicated than just needing an adapter?

 

[MisterMe]

This is half correct. HDV is also an output standard not really meant for editable video. HDV is an MPEG-2 transport stream, after all.

iMovie HD, FCE HD and the third-party helper apps available for FCP all transcode HDV to an editable form. iMovie HD and FCE HD do the transcoding in a way that the user doesn't notice, and transcodes to camera-original format after editing if you wish to print to video. The FCP solutions do the transcoding in front of you.

You stumbled all over a very important point, but you missed it. Apple Computer co-developed HDV with editing the video in mind.

 

[gost8go]

What about 16:9 capability, maybe 24p but not necessarily HD? <$1000 I can live with grain if the colors are good. I think I would hold on to a camera longer if it was 16:9.

bumping my question for anyone with advice

 

[Rod Rod]

JVC markets their HD1 in the consumer space. How many consumers take the time to block and light their birthday parties? 1CCD uses a color filter wheel and the video results in poor saturation and prone to highlight washout. No consumer is going to underexpose their footage and latter apply gamma curves to the video in post so they can get away from low latitude imagery.

Good point regarding the HD1, although its target market isn't necessarily regular consumers but rather early adopters who typically consider themselves experts. However, the HD10's target market should know about underexposing in camera and tweaking in post.

So you are saying event videographers, documentary shooters, news shooters, and aerial shooters are not professionals because they don't light their sets? Nice try, but I'm beginning to wonder if you ever shot professional video in different situations.

Event videographers and news shooters have lights on their cameras (which overcome low-light concerns). Documentary shooters who don't choose to put lights on their cameras are better off using a PD150/170 or better. News and aerial shooters (in the US anyway) would use cameras with 2/3" CCDs anyhow. My comments were really aimed at the idea of using HDV in an indy filmmaking context.

Anyone who knows their way around a post-production house can tell you that 1080i converts down to 720P easily. It's been done since HD was invented. Sure, lots of people prefer the progressive look. Interlaced is used in news casts, and sporting events, where the interlaced artifacts you hate so much are required to display smooth motion at 1/60th of a second and give the viewer a sense of reality and immediacy.

I'd rather have progressive straight away. As for all the situations where interlaced is used, well interlaced has been used for the past 50+ years. These days, only CBS is using 1080i for sports and everyone else is broadcasting sports in 720 60p. That's still 60 samples per second (just like 60i), but even better because it's 60 complete samples instead of 60 half-samples.

You're banned so I suppose you won't be able to engage in further conversation, but I believe we're squared away as far as our differences of opinion and perceptions of fact.

I think I'm ready to make my decision, I just have one last concern. The FX1 does not have XLR inputs... Does that mean you're going to have noticeable quality loss on any sort of XLR microphone because an adapter is needed? And exactly what kind of adapter would be needed? or is it more complicated than just needing an adapter?

I don't know exactly how the FX1 handles its audio, but depending on how you use the camera this may not be a big issue. I'd ask an audio expert how to minimize any drawbacks unbalanced inputs may present. If you're doing any indy filmmaking type projects you're best off recording to DAT or minidisc for best results.

You stumbled all over a very important point, but you missed it. Apple Computer co-developed HDV with editing the video in mind.

Apple Computer did not co-develop HDV. Therefore, the "with editing the video in mind" statement is defenestrated.

The co-developers of HDV are Canon, Sharp, Sony and JVC. The co-owners of the HDV trademarks are Sony and JVC. The earliest supporters of the format were Adobe, Canopus, KDDI, Sony Pictures Digital Networks and Ulead Systems. Apple joined the supporters list a bit later. There is a difference between supporting and developing a format.

http://www.hdv-info.org - Take a look at this if you don't believe me.

 

[Chaszmyr]

If you're doing any indy filmmaking type projects you're best off recording to DAT or minidisc for best results.

That's precisely what I'm doing... Just wondering if the FX1 with a DAT or the Z1 would be better, at this point. (The Z1 will have XLR inputs)



I'll admit though, all this talk about 24p is now making me have second thoughts about Sony's HDV cameras...

 

[TheMac19]

What about 16:9 capability, maybe 24p but not necessarily HD? I can live with grain if the colors are good. I think I would hold on to a camera longer if it was 16:9. Screw standard.

If you want to go <$1000, the aforementioned used Sony is a good starting point, as is a used Canon GL1. The GL1 (and even more so, the GL2) is a great camera for what it is. You can probably track one down used in your price range, and you'll be happy. It's a great affordable 3-chip camera. If you start saying 24p out loud, you're going to get into a whole 'nother can or worms all together; the same with 16x9 native shooting. Just plain a different ballpark.

To get your feet wet you don't need either of those. You don't need a 16x9 camera to create widescreen movies, especially as you're starting out. The GL1 has proven to be a sturdy warrior in the field, and has more than enough pro elements to satisfy someone wanting to get into low-budget filmmaking. Sure it's not a bona fide professional camera, those come with professional price tags... Now if you had the cash, the GL2 is everything the GL1 was, and more, but currently runs well over your $1000 limit.

On the other hand, if you prefer a new camera, you could consider Panasonic's newer 3CCD offerings. The GS400 is a new 3ccd camera and can be found for around a grand. They offer other, smaller 3-chip cameras for even less now, but those don't even hint towards the prosumer market...

 

[gost8go]

If you want to go <$1000, the aforementioned used Sony is a good starting point, as is a used Canon GL1. The GL1 (and even more so, the GL2) is a great camera for what it is.

Are you referring to the TRV900 or TRV950 or both as capable of 16:9?

My plan to is to buy one of the cameras you mentioned and then rent prosumer-grade equipment when I have time to make the best use of it. This thread has been extremely helpful to me.

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

[sigamy]

On the other hand, if you prefer a new camera, you could consider Panasonic's newer 3CCD offerings. The GS400 is a new 3ccd camera and can be found for around a grand. They offer other, smaller 3-chip cameras for even less now, but those don't even hint towards the prosumer market...

I'll second the recommendation for the Panasonic GS400. It has received great reviews online and there is a very active community at http://www.pana3ccduser.com

I own one and I love it. It may not be considered prosumer, but it is widely regared as the best high-end consumer cam around. Results in the 16:9 mode are incredible! Very close to matching broadcast TV. It also offers a frame mode and ProCinema to match a film-like look.

The Sony 900 and 950 are also very good cams, the new HC1000 has some negative reviews, mainly focusing on the touch-screen controls.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The Sony FX-1 is only $3000. The Z1 is about $5000. A pro shooter friend tells me that beta testers of the Z1 think it's very close to the Panasonic Varicam (which my friend rents for jobs) and the Sony costs about $95,000 less. The FX-1 doesn't have as many features, but is still a 3-ccd 1080i/60 camera.

The Z1 is due in Februrary. If I were a serious hobbyist, there's no way I would spend $3000 on a DV camcorder with these two cameras out there.

Hey, its no far to compare a new Z1 to an obviously broken Varicam. I have seen FX-1 footage against a Sony F900 (HDCAM) and there is a massive difference.

People seem to forget that the glass makes a huge, huge diffence. Even between the same model cameras better glass can make a night and day difference. Alas... only if we could all afford $100,000 cameras w/$50,000
worth of glass on the front end.

Before I'd buy anything I'd wait for NAB. I've heard rumor that Panasonic is going to release a DVCProHD camera priced to compete w/Sony's HDV camera. Assuming it's true, and assuming Panasonic didn't shave off too many features, this camera could steal Sony's thunder.


Lethal