Camera Choices
by kyle powers
on
Jun 13, 2009 at 9:02:04 pm
Total beginner here. My planned use is in shooting Indie films. I need to select an HD camera. I plan to shoot both indoors (some of it low light) as well as outdoors. When I first started out with my research I was thinking I wanted to shoot 1080 24p to emulate the look of film. But now I'm not sure as it seems some think 1080 30p looks better. Enventually I would like to be able to generate footage that is appropriate for film festivals, contests, etc. My budget for the Cam is 4 to 8k. I know I will need to spend money for microphones, lighting, etc. As as far NLE's I'm looking at Premier. I have a quad core Intel PC with 6 GB of ram. If I have to go with FCP I suppose I can get a MAC.
It seems like the more I research this stuff the more confused I get. I was focussing on the Sony EX3 then I starting reading about the downside of long GOP and the whole inter verses intra frame compression and of course rolling shutter. It seems like most folks beleive that HDV due to it's high compression is not the best way to go. I would prefer to go tapeless. The more I read the more it seems that ergonomics is not something to be ignored and that something with the ergonomics of a should mount cam like a Panasonic GY-HM700 would be desired over a hand held. Plus I am unsure if it would be wise of me to choose a camera that with a fixed lense as I would like maximum flexibility down the road.
So in lieu of actual camera suggestions I was hoping for feedback on the pros and cons of the various technologies and feature options with my stated use in mind (IE indi film, in doors and out with probable low light requirements). CMOS verses CCD? 1/3" CCD verese 1/2" CMOS? XDCAM verses DVC Pro verese HDV, verses ?. True native HD verses other technologies. 4:2:0 verses 4:2:2. I know the most imporant variable as far as getting a quality end result is the skill of the operator but that being said I don't want my selection to prevent me from being able to generate footage with excellent picture quality and ease of editing. Sorry for the long post but it seems to more I research the harder it becomes for me to choose the best combination of technologies and features within my budget
Re: Camera Choices by Harry Pallenberg on Jun 14, 2009 at 4:47:23 am
Rent... or hire a DP / cameraman who has his/her own gear.
Ok not the answer you want. Here is another non answer... ANY of the 4-8K cameras can take good pictures if used properly and any of them can shoot a oscar worthy film if the story, acting and everything else is up to snuff.
Ok, semi answer you want. Larger chips are better for low light and depth of field, but the diff between 1/2 and 1/3 inch is quite small - so don't let that be your deciding factor.
CMOS aka rolling shutter should not be a problem unless you plan of shooting a film with lots of camera flashes or whip pans - again not a factor.
Shoot 24p - if you ever sell it or make it into a PAL county film fest its much easier to do than from 30p.
I have always used Sony, but HATE the EX1 and EX3 - they just don't fit me and I do more run & gun doc type stuff, so if you are on sticks - not a factor.
Also I like tape as an archive, but if I was going to go tapeless I'd look at the JVC 700 as the media is basically as cheap as tape, and I could even just archive the SDHC cards. They are WAY cheaper than SXS or P2.
ANY JVC, Panny, Sony will work and work well. No camera is perfect for every job, which is why I say rent.
Thanks,
Harry
Forum Cowmunity Leader: Indie & Doc
Forum Cowmunity Leader: HDV
Re: Camera Choices by Noah Kadner on Jun 14, 2009 at 3:42:07 pm
I suggest a Panasonic HMC150- it's a very easy to use very affordable camera capable of 90% of the imagery of cameras twice and three times its price. A great way to tip your toes into HD that isn't a waste of time- such as the cruddy Handycam style HD cameras below this one.
Also for basic cinematography lessons, get a Canon 5D Mark II with its 1080p HD video mode. It is compromised in terms of having a semi useless frame rate but you can learn a ton about working with lenses and exposure. Then if you're still into it after a while, move up to a more robust HD camera.
Re: Camera Choices by David Jones on Jun 15, 2009 at 9:44:31 pm
I would agree with what was said in the last two posts. Although, I DO like the Sony EX :-)
A couple of thoughts:
If you're shooting a doc, I would buy. If it's a dramatic (scripted film), then rent (with operator) if you can.
Think about what your final output will be: TV, or theater; or web. Size does matter. If your films will be projected, then you would want a bigger imager (chip) to begin with. If it's for anything else, then I wouldn't let the chip size worry you. That said, a great story with good acting/cinematography/editing shot on a 1/3 chip is far better than a bad film shot on a 1" chip!
You said you also need to buy sound gear; again, I would hire someone with gear unless you have a good-sized budget for stuff. Good audio equipment isn't cheap. Trying to do it "on the cheap" may not yield you the "Hollywood" sound you're hoping for.
Re: Camera Choices by Richard Herd on Jun 16, 2009 at 5:29:19 pm
[kyle powers]"I was hoping for feedback on the pros and cons of the various technologies and feature options with my stated use in mind (IE indi film, in doors and out with probable low light requirements)."
I admire your passion. If you think you can do it, you probably can. And I've said it before, so I'll say it again:
Storytelling and video ain't about the codecs, wiring, lenses, and all the other amazing, complex tools; it's about the audience, the ones receiving/experiencing the work. You'll want to know words like denouement, catharsis, proscenium, mise en scene.
So many movies I see from the school of "just buy a camera, get an internship, and go for it" are riddled with cliches--cliches in the story, dialogue, and character--cliches in the camera, editing, and acting.
There's a couple thousand years worth of drama to read and watch and 150 years of cinema to screen.
Capturing clean pic and audio: easy.
Making a movie that 1,000,000 people want to pay $10 to see: really really really really hard.
I realize it's not very democratizing-of-cinema of me to say any of those cameras you listed are not going to do the trick of getting your movie onto a "big screen." The process that changes the micro-resolution into massive resolution is extremely expensive. Budgets like "Crank 2" can afford it. Even if you shot on Kodak Vision 3, you probably won't get onto a big screen without the basics of cinema storytelling: film language, how to tell a story with your camera. The different shots, how they work together, how to transition from an objective angle to a subjective angle. Planning the edit points. There's a lot of details.
Where does on begin? Using the camera you can afford, and telling compelling stories with it. You'll find limits with locations, stunts, actors, settings. Be sure to keep money available for things like: food for the crew, liability insurance for the shoot, and post production. A wise editor I know said "Editing is not the most important part of the movie; it IS the movie."
To sum, the pros of the cameras you listed are "at least you have some passion and can learn." The cons are you'll need to start small as in 1 minute - 10 minutes of story. Pulling off a 120 minute feature length movie your first time out of the gates is a nightmare scenario.
Re: Camera Choices by Dale Thompson on Jun 18, 2009 at 9:31:31 pm
I totally agree with what Richard said (well done too!) and will add to his fine words of encouragement.
You're in the exact same position I was eight months ago, so I can totally relate. So many choices, so many price ranges, so many options, so damn confusing!
I learned the hard way, so I will give you some hints to buying gear. If you want to buy a camera, look on this site or dvxuser.com, a lot of good deals on gently used gear that won't break the bank. I bought a Panasonic HVX200 camera (plus some other accessories) for a very good deal. Camera had only 16 hours on it, bought it for $4800. I then sold the P2 card that came with it and bought a Firestore FS-100 HD (160GB) for another $900. I sold my card for $450, so the Firestore was a great deal indeed and works really, really well. I then bought a used Manfrotto 501 tripod, $340 for it. Rode NT-2 microphone was another $380. cables, misc batteries and accessories were like $200 on top of everything else. I got an 3.06 GhZ iMac (only because I couldn't afford a Power Mac G5) with 4GB Ram and 24" screen for $1900 (and a Western Digital external HD for $125) for backing everything up. All of this cost me $8070.00 and, guess what, I still need some more gear haha. I need a nice on-camera light right now, that will be approx. $500 - $700 for that and an external battery for the light and/or firestore too, another $200.
It's expensive to shoot film/video, make no mistake about it. Ultimately, you can go a lot more expensive than what I did or even cheaper. I like to think my gear is average maybe in terms of quality and industry standards but, hey, listen to what Richard said too. It's all about the story, it really is. I'm filming a documentary and I now realize I don't need all the fancy tools or things for it. Want a good story/premise that has no fancy tools or special effects? Watch "Supersize Me" or any of Michael Moore's earlier stuff (his later films are a bit more polished haha), these are slightly basic films in terms of quality and how they were edited (no disrespect whatsoever, I think Supersize Me is great!) but the storylines are intriguing, people love them. Look at flops that went way over budget and were crap movies. Doesn't matter if you have HD or special effects, the story or idea was crap and people turned away from seeing them.
I only bought my equipment because I wanted long use from them. I'm shooting in 720/24 HD and the results so far have been really impressive in terms of quality and sound. Not the best like a Hollywood big budget but still good enough for a film festival.
Bigger isn't better... buy what you can afford and spend lots of time on ideas and writing. In the end, you'll have a project strong on quality and less about the wow factor. Want a good wow factor? Great writing and something that people will be so impressed by, they'll talk about it after they watched it.
Re: Camera Choices by kyle powers on Jun 20, 2009 at 6:46:07 pm
Thanks for the feeback guys. I understand that content is of course king. I figure the easy part should be in choosing choosing equipement and the hard part will be creating compelling content. I Just want to be sure that my equipment choices within, the confines of my budget don't limit me given my requirements. I've done a ton of research and I'm down to two cams: Panasonic HPX170 and the Sony EX-1, EX3. Pano's CCD 960 x 540 with pixel shifting verses Sony's CMOS 1920 x 1080 with possible rolling shutter issues. Pano's DVCPRO intraframe verses Sony's Mpeg2 long GOP. Pano's 4:2:0 color sampling verses Sony's 4:2:2. I keep reading that the EX has a very "Video like" image and that the Pano's is much more film like. I've also read that with much effort you can simulate the film like look with the Sony with the proper settings (True,false?). The most important thing to me is that I don't want my equipment choices to prevent me from generating the highest quality, most film like image within the confines of my budget. Eventually I would like to submit my stuff for digital projection with decent image quality. Given that I'm not an experienced shooter I don't know if I would be able to shoot footage proper footage that truly represented the best of what these two cams are capable of if I were to rent each one.
Re: Camera Choices by David Jones on Jun 21, 2009 at 2:23:36 am
I think your choices are good ones. Both are professional cameras and offer professional tools to get a fairly high-end product.
The pros and cons you weighed are the same ones (I think) everyone has been weighing. In my opinion, based on what type of projects you want to produce, I would go with the EX1 or EX3 (if you can afford it). The reasons are simple: 1/2 chip vs. 1/3 chip, and full-raster vs. pixel shifting.
One other thing I would throw out there: content IS the most important factor, but don't go cheap on the sound. As someone I know once said, "good video with bad audio is bad video". If people can't hear or understand the dialog, the picture quality won't matter anyway.
Re: Camera Choices by Richard Herd on Jun 21, 2009 at 2:08:37 am
You have it backwards: Panny is 4:2:2 and Sony is 4:2:0. I bought the panny hvx200, in 2006. If I were buying a camera tomorrow, I'd by the Canon XL H1s. I would not buy the Sony, but that's me. You might ask "why would Sony make a long gop 4:2:0 mpeg2 camera? That's because the data rate will fit into a live television broadcast scheme, which is very important for news gathering, and plenty of picture for microbudget indie film festivals. Regardless, your camera determines a lot of other decisions. Here's a bit I wrote earlier: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/47/856727
But regardless, what makes an image compelling? The contrast ratio in the lighting design! Either of those cameras will be a fine choice. You won't go wrong, either way. There's more to telling a story than the capture device.
If you want/need your movie to look like film at the cheapest possible price point, then it's tough to beat http://www.pro8mm.com/home.html because you can actually shoot on film and scan the negative into any color space you desire, log or linear. It's film, and the super 8mm option means it's very easy to load :-) Plus, learning to shoot on film means you'll be judicious in your coverage plan. Often, microbudget directors shoot at a ridiculously high ratio, 10:1 or more. Shooting film means you'll plan more and get a better performance quicker, also means you'll save money.
Here's more: You have to buy the magazine, but here's the link: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2009/current.php "Testing Digital Cameras: The ASC and the Producers Guild of America put 7 digital cameras through their paces with the Camera Assessment Series."
Re: Camera Choices by Gary Walker on Sep 22, 2009 at 11:58:51 am
I realise I'm jumping in late, but I thought it was a really good (and more importantly sensible) discussion. With regards to the quality of the image, and how much to invest in a camera, I've always judged it in one simple way, of all of the films I've ever seen, which do I like the most? Its a long list, granted, but films such as Eraserhead, Primer, El Mariachi, Metropolis and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari all find there way on there. Were the more modern films on the list filmed with amazing cameras? Nope. Does a film from the 1920s look as good as anything released in the past 10 years? again no. Films shot with relatively modest cameras have found their way to cinema screens and found some commercial success, I'm thinking particularly of 28 Days Later which was shot, in part, using a Canon XL1.. and Crank 2 was shot using Canon XH-A1s and Canon HF10s.
If your idea, script and people making it are strong then an audience will gravitate to it, and sometimes a filming style can overcome other areas that aren’t as 'hollywood budget'-esq. If a studio sees that they can make money of any film, no matter what the quality, they'll to look closely at it as well (although I would imagine such instances are few and far between.. unless your name is Robert Rodriguez)
