OT: Camcorders

[glove-n-pie]

Hi, Sorry for this being off topic.

I'm looking into getting a camcorder and I was wondering what all you movie producers use? I'm eyeing up cameras like Canon Legria HF G30 or the Sony NEX VG20/30 (Though this may be a touch out of my budget)

The use would be semi-pro as I would like to start producing some fetish videos.

Thanks
Andy.

[driversoft]

Noise, from the UMD, seems to be a mine of information when it comes to camcorders, and has answered this question in great detail a few times already - you may be able to try asking him again, or dig up some old posts by searching.

[Getmessy]

You don't need a video camera as any decent bridge or dslr camera now have hd video recording.

The gadget show said that camcorders are dead.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

.... which just goes to show what utter bollocks they spout on the Gadget Show! It's horses for courses. Camcorders will continue to exist for professional users but with professional prices. DSLRs use single CMOS sensors with rolling shutters and suffer from spatial aliasing due to the Beyer pattern of the sensor elements. 3-chip CCDs enjoy global shutter and better performance in terms of aliasing but require a trichroic optical splitter block, which isn't cheap. Controls on professional camcorders are also far better and easier to drive, along with professional (balanced) XLR connections for audio.

The lack of optical low-pass filters on DSLRs means that much material has to be shot with shallow depth of field to avoid the alias pattern moving in the opposite direction to the primary direction of movement but this isn't always appropriate for the subject material. DSLRs can be used reasonably effectively for scripted content but you can't just grab a DSLR and use it for news gathering and the like - well - people do but it looks pretty crap because the optics aren't really matched to that application.

However, the costs of the professional camcorders is such that only major companies will continue to use them, with others hiring them in on a daily basis from hire companies that can afford to buy them by really sweating the assets, whereas the end user won't be utilising them enough to justify the capital cost.

So - horses for courses!

[glove-n-pie]

I'm going to be looking at the some DSLRs as well I think. Though my instinct is always to go with a device whose primary function is what I want, rather than it being a secondary function of a device.

I'm starting to narrow down what I'm looking at

Panasonic HC-G920
Canon HF-G30
The Sony camera (I can not think of the model number and sony's website isn't showing any camcorders at the mo, seems a bit more gimmicky with a projector built in that is not quite powerful enough to do it justice

So really it is between the Panasonic and the Canon.

[Getmessy]

.... which just goes to show what utter bollocks they spout on the Gadget Show! It's horses for courses. Camcorders will continue to exist for professional users but with professional prices. DSLRs use single CMOS sensors with rolling shutters and suffer from spatial aliasing due to the Beyer pattern of the sensor elements. 3-chip CCDs enjoy global shutter and better performance in terms of aliasing but require a trichroic optical splitter block, which isn't cheap. Controls on professional camcorders are also far better and easier to drive, along with professional (balanced) XLR connections for audio.

The lack of optical low-pass filters on DSLRs means that much material has to be shot with shallow depth of field to avoid the alias pattern moving in the opposite direction to the primary direction of movement but this isn't always appropriate for the subject material. DSLRs can be used reasonably effectively for scripted content but you can't just grab a DSLR and use it for news gathering and the like - well - people do but it looks pretty crap because the optics aren't really matched to that application.

However, the costs of the professional camcorders is such that only major companies will continue to use them, with others hiring them in on a daily basis from hire companies that can afford to buy them by really sweating the assets, whereas the end user won't be utilising them enough to justify the capital cost.

So - horses for courses!

Hi I obviously wasn't saying there will be no camcorders but I didn't think that he wanted to spend £20,000 on a professional tv camera. If he wants to spend £500 - £1000 then a good dslr is what you need. A number of small professional internet tv companies I know only use dslrs. At an event I went to this weekend that's all people were using a dslr mounted to a stedicam platform.

[boxster]

I think I understand the arguments here. I don't find £ 500 or so too bad for Andy's semi-pro use, or even low-end pro use such as splosh vids, but I have to admit I had trouble understanding Lesley's discussion. Not the most technical person when cameras are involved.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Yes sorry - it's my subject area! LoL.

Yes, most small-end operations these days are using DSLRs but they aren't acceptable to the broadcast industry as the aliasing problem causes them to be demoted into a lower tier (as per http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf). The low bit-rate of the inbuilt bit-rate reduction systems also means that they don't fall into any of the acceptable tiers listed in that doc. However, you'd be looking at something in the region of £15-£20k to get something that does meet even the lower segments of those requirements (though £4k-£5k could get you into bottom tier 4 but with restrictions on the type and percentage of material you'd be allowed to include) but that's what I was meaning about camcorders not disappearing altogether - they'll still be around for professionals but not affordable for the likes of most people.

Most camcorders that are available for domestic use aren't really good enough quality as, in most cases, many of the controls are automatic, though some have some settings buried in the menu. (Pro camcorders have dedicated switches/knobs for many of the common controls.)

DSLRs would give better performance than many 'cheap & cheerful' domestic camcorders but introduce additional difficulties - they really don't have a camcorder look to the captured material, owing to the larger sensor area reducing the depth of field and they certainly aren't as versatile in an unpredictable situation. Quite good for carefully planned, scripted and rehearsed arty-style shots on fixed tripods (though the latter is something everyone should use wherever possible anyway, of course - the difference between pros and rank amateurs! ) I'm not saying you can't use a DSLR for other purposes but it's like using a Sherman tank rather than car - they'll both get you there but it's not necessarily a comfortable ride and can be quite slow to operate!

[dunktankbabes]

We use a Panasonic TM900 which is the predecessor of the HC X920, its a fantastic piece of kit. When we looked the Panasonic was several hundred pounds cheaper than the Canon equivalent. It has 3 sensors compared to Canons 1 which I'm convinced makes a difference. I did some work with a friend who has the Canon XF100 which is a £2500 pro camera and the low light quality of the TM900 was as good if not better. You can use the camera manually if you want to and it has a very useful Focus / aperture / zoom ring on the lens.
We tried using DSLR's and I found it very difficult to get used to. You have to focus manually and you do need some kind of rig to support the camera for hand held work.
You can see the quality of the TM900 in our later films and vidcaps, bear in mind though they have been compressed to use as downloads.

www.gungetankbabes.com