Caseman238
I want to buy a new camcorder. I prefer Canon, but might consider something else. I usually videotape fire scenes for our local dept, and i film trains some. I would probably be doing some indoor shoots too, such as a school Christmas play. Here is what i'm looking for:
* Preferably under 600$
* I want to attach a shotgun mic to it (such as RODE videomic)
* I may want to add a led light for shooting also.
Answer
his wahat I was told :
The problem with HD is that it is not a video standard, rather it is a marketing term that describes a frame size only (i.e Full HD is 1920 x 1080).
The quality varies widely, and cameras run from under $100 to over $100,000 (not a typo). Along with normal camera parts and pieces such as lens quality and light gathering, the quality is also dependent on the data-rate, the LESS time you can record on a given size card or hdd, the better the video.
The final nail in HDs quality coffin is the compression. Only a fraction of the 25 or 30 frames per second are from light processed by the sensor. In some cameras MOST of the frames are mathematically calculated based on frames ahead and behind.
So, before the merits of SD, the limits of HD...
Really cheap cameras will get 6 or under gb of data per hour.
Name brand, cheap cameras typically get 8 gigs/hr
About $350 or so, the consumer twinkie cams get 11 gigs/hr. This does not change even into the top of the line, $2000, consumer twinkie-cams.
DSLRs get 20 gigs and approach very good quality, but they do have a host of other issues that make them ill suited for recording long events like a wedding. All over the web and here on "Answers".
Pro cameras start at $3000 and get 25 gigs/hr HOWEVER the compression has improved to 4:2:2 intraframe compression, no frame depends on its neighbors. Quality and cost go way up from here.
SD, MiniDv based cameras for consumers are few new, Canon stopped their last one in January, the ZR960. But this format is still popular for pros and TV field use. Remember this frame size is 1/6th that of HD, yet it gets 13 gigs/hr of data and is 4:2:2 compression. In other words, very good quality.
Your problem is that your fellow consumers gave up quality for ease of use. Your only options now, unless you can find unsold DV cameras, is to go with a used camera or spend the $800 or more to get a HDV camera. (HD version of MiniDv, 1440 x 1080 typically).
The other issue is that for consumers, DV and HDV is actually MORE data intensive than HD for storage (The tapes are a built in archive, though) and editing. You will need a firewire port on your computer.
HD from ANY twinkie camera is fine for small screens, computers, phones, youtube. But even on a moderate HDTV it starts to fail in quality. My SD, Canon GL-2's video can be up-converted to HD and is better than native HD the small consumer cameras.
If you can find on, DV will give you better video in more environments. DSLR may be an option, just know their limits. HDV is very good and the best you can get under $1000 new.
Just depends on budget, specific uses and your intended media...
Scott's answer is spot on, but there's still the issue of editing. As Scott said, the HD formats throw away most of the video data - this is fine for the finished product (Blu-ray, DVD) but not good for editing. Most of the frames you want to edit have to be reconstructed on the fly - this needs a lot of computer power. Another problem is that every change you make is likely to degrade the video quality - if your business is providing good quality video, can you afford to do that? Then there's the final render - this will almost certainly be to a lossy format - this has to involve some loss of quality but it's worse if you're starting with a lossy format.
Someone said that cards are easier for editing - the only thing that's easier is the ability to put the card in a reader - it's a very slim advantage!
new is not the same as better. so the real question depends on whether you need "better" because of intended commercial use, or "newer" because its just for home hobby use.
The reason miniDV can be edited by all computer editors, including the freebie ones, is because it is open source code and has not been messed with for over 15 years. yep, a Windows95 could edit miniDV. further, its low compression of 6:1 greatly reduced the computational power demanded of the CPU to keep up in real time. Contrast that with AVCHD which is a proprietary secret invented by Sony and only available to editing programs that are willing to pay exorbitant license fees. That is why it doesn't come as a freebie. And the code is not fixed, AVCHD has undergone significant changes every year since being introduced, moving from a lousy 200:1 compression to a somewhat respectable 40:1 compression in current top level consumer cameras. So if you buy a discounted older model editor, it might not work at all with a new camera. AVCHD was designed by Sony to be strictly amateur grade, Sony designed XDcam for professional use and the differences are not trivial.
IMHO miniDV will continue to be a viable commercial format as long as movie DVDs remain as the primary distribution media. not everybody wants to view videos on a computer, and that goes double for the mother of the bride, the one paying the bill.
his wahat I was told :
The problem with HD is that it is not a video standard, rather it is a marketing term that describes a frame size only (i.e Full HD is 1920 x 1080).
The quality varies widely, and cameras run from under $100 to over $100,000 (not a typo). Along with normal camera parts and pieces such as lens quality and light gathering, the quality is also dependent on the data-rate, the LESS time you can record on a given size card or hdd, the better the video.
The final nail in HDs quality coffin is the compression. Only a fraction of the 25 or 30 frames per second are from light processed by the sensor. In some cameras MOST of the frames are mathematically calculated based on frames ahead and behind.
So, before the merits of SD, the limits of HD...
Really cheap cameras will get 6 or under gb of data per hour.
Name brand, cheap cameras typically get 8 gigs/hr
About $350 or so, the consumer twinkie cams get 11 gigs/hr. This does not change even into the top of the line, $2000, consumer twinkie-cams.
DSLRs get 20 gigs and approach very good quality, but they do have a host of other issues that make them ill suited for recording long events like a wedding. All over the web and here on "Answers".
Pro cameras start at $3000 and get 25 gigs/hr HOWEVER the compression has improved to 4:2:2 intraframe compression, no frame depends on its neighbors. Quality and cost go way up from here.
SD, MiniDv based cameras for consumers are few new, Canon stopped their last one in January, the ZR960. But this format is still popular for pros and TV field use. Remember this frame size is 1/6th that of HD, yet it gets 13 gigs/hr of data and is 4:2:2 compression. In other words, very good quality.
Your problem is that your fellow consumers gave up quality for ease of use. Your only options now, unless you can find unsold DV cameras, is to go with a used camera or spend the $800 or more to get a HDV camera. (HD version of MiniDv, 1440 x 1080 typically).
The other issue is that for consumers, DV and HDV is actually MORE data intensive than HD for storage (The tapes are a built in archive, though) and editing. You will need a firewire port on your computer.
HD from ANY twinkie camera is fine for small screens, computers, phones, youtube. But even on a moderate HDTV it starts to fail in quality. My SD, Canon GL-2's video can be up-converted to HD and is better than native HD the small consumer cameras.
If you can find on, DV will give you better video in more environments. DSLR may be an option, just know their limits. HDV is very good and the best you can get under $1000 new.
Just depends on budget, specific uses and your intended media...
Scott's answer is spot on, but there's still the issue of editing. As Scott said, the HD formats throw away most of the video data - this is fine for the finished product (Blu-ray, DVD) but not good for editing. Most of the frames you want to edit have to be reconstructed on the fly - this needs a lot of computer power. Another problem is that every change you make is likely to degrade the video quality - if your business is providing good quality video, can you afford to do that? Then there's the final render - this will almost certainly be to a lossy format - this has to involve some loss of quality but it's worse if you're starting with a lossy format.
Someone said that cards are easier for editing - the only thing that's easier is the ability to put the card in a reader - it's a very slim advantage!
new is not the same as better. so the real question depends on whether you need "better" because of intended commercial use, or "newer" because its just for home hobby use.
The reason miniDV can be edited by all computer editors, including the freebie ones, is because it is open source code and has not been messed with for over 15 years. yep, a Windows95 could edit miniDV. further, its low compression of 6:1 greatly reduced the computational power demanded of the CPU to keep up in real time. Contrast that with AVCHD which is a proprietary secret invented by Sony and only available to editing programs that are willing to pay exorbitant license fees. That is why it doesn't come as a freebie. And the code is not fixed, AVCHD has undergone significant changes every year since being introduced, moving from a lousy 200:1 compression to a somewhat respectable 40:1 compression in current top level consumer cameras. So if you buy a discounted older model editor, it might not work at all with a new camera. AVCHD was designed by Sony to be strictly amateur grade, Sony designed XDcam for professional use and the differences are not trivial.
IMHO miniDV will continue to be a viable commercial format as long as movie DVDs remain as the primary distribution media. not everybody wants to view videos on a computer, and that goes double for the mother of the bride, the one paying the bill.
I want to shoot high quality digital video (not high def), what digital camcorder should I get?
cookie
Any pro-sumer camcorder under $3000 is good? Any good one under $2000?
Answer
You are in the right target range - basically, the largest lens and imaging chips you can get in the camcorder - in the price range you can afford - keep in mind that you should not spend you whole budget on the camcorder. Audio and stability devices - Mics and tripod/crane/steadycam-glidecam devices - and lights will be needed. Maybe even a lens or two.
Standard definition
Canon GL2 & XL2, Sony DCR-VX2100, Panasonic AG-DVX100 series.
Any particular reason you don't want high def? They can all capture standard def, too... Sony HDR-FX1000 & HVR-V1U, Canon XHA1...
You are in the right target range - basically, the largest lens and imaging chips you can get in the camcorder - in the price range you can afford - keep in mind that you should not spend you whole budget on the camcorder. Audio and stability devices - Mics and tripod/crane/steadycam-glidecam devices - and lights will be needed. Maybe even a lens or two.
Standard definition
Canon GL2 & XL2, Sony DCR-VX2100, Panasonic AG-DVX100 series.
Any particular reason you don't want high def? They can all capture standard def, too... Sony HDR-FX1000 & HVR-V1U, Canon XHA1...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment