Hey duude seems you know alot about cameras, damn good post, thank you! What do you think of the JVC GZ-MG645BEK, i don't want anything to flashy and expensive but decent enough for stuff on here and good quality. Thanks!
I haven't personally used that camera, so I can't give an opinion of if from hands on experience, but it looks ok for a more simple camera.
The one problem you might run into is that because it's a HDD camera, you might have to transcode the footage from the camera's hard drive to convert it into something your editing software can work with. Which could bring up another problem. Depending on the software you're using to edit, the cameras footage may not be compatible.
Ahh im a bit more upgrading than movie maker ahha! Adobe Premier Pro 1.5. So are you suggesting dont go for a HDD camera?
Hey duude seems you know alot about cameras, damn good post, thank you! What do you think of the JVC GZ-MG645BEK, i don't want anything to flashy and expensive but decent enough for stuff on here and good quality. Thanks!
I haven't personally used that camera, so I can't give an opinion of if from hands on experience, but it looks ok for a more simple camera.
The one problem you might run into is that because it's a HDD camera, you might have to transcode the footage from the camera's hard drive to convert it into something your editing software can work with. Which could bring up another problem. Depending on the software you're using to edit, the cameras footage may not be compatible.
Ahh im a bit more upgrading than movie maker ahha! Adobe Premier Pro 1.5. So are you suggesting dont go for a HDD camera?
HDD cameras are fine for most uses, and they're the most convinient cameras to use (many can store 12+ hours of HD footage on the disk). There are some drawbacks with the format most of them use - AVCHD, which requires a hell of a lot of computing power to edit and render.
I haven't personally used that camera, so I can't give an opinion of if from hands on experience, but it looks ok for a more simple camera.
The one problem you might run into is that because it's a HDD camera, you might have to transcode the footage from the camera's hard drive to convert it into something your editing software can work with. Which could bring up another problem. Depending on the software you're using to edit, the cameras footage may not be compatible.
Ahh im a bit more upgrading than movie maker ahha! Adobe Premier Pro 1.5. So are you suggesting dont go for a HDD camera?
HDD cameras are fine for most uses, and they're the most convinient cameras to use (many can store 12+ hours of HD footage on the disk). There are some drawbacks with the format most of them use - AVCHD, which requires a hell of a lot of computing power to edit and render.
Ok cool thanks for the help! Ill keep looking! Any suggestions?
HDD cameras are fine for most uses, and they're the most convinient cameras to use (many can store 12+ hours of HD footage on the disk).
This is not actually completely true. They are simple yes, but they suffer from one of the biggest drawbacks you see with any hard drive. Depending on the camera, and how you treat the camera, they can be very prone to corrupting. Slight bumps, or worse yet if the camera was dropped can cause the entire hard drive to wipe. Some cameras have a built in feature that will attempt to shut the hard drive down if the camera senses it's falling, but even then it doesn't always work.
So just keep in mind that you will have to be more careful with a HDD camera, then cameras shooting to other more rugged mediums.
Also, Premiere Pro 1.5 is fairly old and would have issues editing AVC, or other newer codecs. Premiere Pro 4.1 was the first version of Adobe's editing software that could handle the AVC codec natively. But there are still work arounds, which just means you'll have to transcode the footage into another format before editing.
HDD cameras are fine for most uses, and they're the most convinient cameras to use (many can store 12+ hours of HD footage on the disk).
This is not actually completely true. They are simple yes, but they suffer from one of the biggest drawbacks you see with any hard drive. Depending on the camera, and how you treat the camera, they can be very prone to corrupting. Slight bumps, or worse yet if the camera was dropped can cause the entire hard drive to wipe. Some cameras have a built in feature that will attempt to shut the hard drive down if the camera senses it's falling, but even then it doesn't always work.
So just keep in mind that you will have to be more careful with a HDD camera, then cameras shooting to other more rugged mediums.
Also, Premiere Pro 1.5 is fairly old and would have issues editing AVC, or other newer codecs. Premiere Pro 4.1 was the first version of Adobe's editing software that could handle the AVC codec natively. But there are still work arounds, which just means you'll have to transcode the footage into another format before editing.
Yes, they are much more prone to failure after drops and shakes. The severeness of this problem depends on the camera though. I have a Sony HDR-SR12 with a 120GB hard drive, and I've dropped it from 1.5m onto rocks when it was on and it was absolutely fine. It did have the free-fall sensor turned on though.
Gotta remeber tho with some of the cameras and all the compression software you are running on you editing platform, Im currently running a 3ccd Panosonic gs500 with adobe premiere pro, I find that outputting compressed clips for the web quality not so hot but for dvd and such looks amazing! but ya the an editing platform is pretty much half the battle sometimes with quality.
Gotta remeber tho with some of the cameras and all the compression software you are running on you editing platform, Im currently running a 3ccd Panosonic gs500 with adobe premiere pro, I find that outputting compressed clips for the web quality not so hot but for dvd and such looks amazing! but ya the an editing platform is pretty much half the battle sometimes with quality.
What format /quality/ settings etc do you use when on the final save for a DVD, becuase mine tend to be a large size!?
So I'm looking for a new (or refurbished) HD camcorder and have only certain requirements, but I'm having trouble finding something that satifies all of them without going WAY out of my pricerange (below $500 USD) with extra features I don't need. The list of requirements:
1) HD Video in 1080p at 60fps (this is somewhat flexible)
2) Manual focus via manual focus ring--no touch panel focus crap. This is a MUST.
3) The heavier and bigger the better. I'm sick of my shots getting ruined because the camera is so light that moving your hand to zoom in bumps it around.
So I'm looking for a new (or refurbished) HD camcorder and have only certain requirements, but I'm having trouble finding something that satifies all of them without going WAY out of my pricerange (below $500 USD) with extra features I don't need. The list of requirements:
1) HD Video in 1080p at 60fps (this is somewhat flexible)
2) Manual focus via manual focus ring--no touch panel focus crap. This is a MUST.
3) The heavier and bigger the better. I'm sick of my shots getting ruined because the camera is so light that moving your hand to zoom in bumps it around.
Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!!!!!!!!
-Thanks a lot if you can help me out! AM
The problem is that all those features are mostly only found on prosumer and professional cameras. Some high-end ($1,500) Sony consumer cameras have a small focus knob on the front, but that doesn't compare to a real ring. And to get real 1080p recording you're looking at a good prosumer camera, like Sony's HDR-FX1000, which is $3,200 new. And weight comes with prosumer cameras too.
Yes, SpikeX is correct. You are going to be looking at spending considerably more then $500 to get the features you need. To get a camera shooting true 1080p you are going to have to spend a lot more.
The nasty little secret about a lot of "1080p" prosumer cameras, such as those using the HDV codec (the FX1000 is a perfect example), is that they are actually pixel shifting to reach 1920x1080, when they are really shooting in a lower resolution. So if you're looking for true 1080p you're going to be spending a lot more then your current budget.
Again a camera that shoots in 60fps does not exist in your price range, currently the cheapest option would be to go with a DSLR like the Panasonic DMC-GH1, which currently sells new for around $1500. From there the cameras jump to the $3000+ range.
Manual focus won't be a huge issue once you get into the range of cameras that have the other features you require. There are tons of options for this. The same goes for a heavier camera.
Your best bet would be to either spend more, or settle for something fewer of the features you need. If you're set on spending in the $500 range, look into the Canon HV line. They are small consumer cameras, but they have decent manual control, variable frame rates, shoot in HDV "1080p" and you really can't buy a better camera for the money. If you are willing to spend more, then jump up to the prosumer line of HDV cameras. The cheapest to look at would be the HDR-FX7, which would give you the manual focus, heavier setup, and the ability to shoot in HD for $2000 new. And if your willing to spend more, look into either a Canon XH-A1 or FX1000. Both are really solid cameras.
It'll be a bit of a compromise either way you go, but you should be able to find something that will suit your needs.
Yes, SpikeX is correct. You are going to be looking at spending considerably more then $500 to get the features you need. To get a camera shooting true 1080p you are going to have to spend a lot more.
The nasty little secret about a lot of "1080p" prosumer cameras, such as those using the HDV codec (the FX1000 is a perfect example), is that they are actually pixel shifting to reach 1920x1080, when they are really shooting in a lower resolution.
I thought the FX1000 actually processes everything as 1920 x 1080 but then compresses it to 1440 x 1080 for HDV. Apparantly you get true 1920 x 1080 via the HDMI port.
Yes that is correct. Via the HDMI port you'd be getting true uncompressed 1080p, but due to the compression limitations of tape, HDV will write in 1440x1080. Which is the same for most prosumer HDV cameras.
It's to bad there are currently no options for recording through the HDMI port without having the camera connected directly to a computer. I'm sure over time some portable HDMI recorders will be available though.
Yes that is correct. Via the HDMI port you'd be getting true uncompressed 1080p, but due to the compression limitations of tape, HDV will write in 1440x1080. Which is the same for most prosumer HDV cameras.
It's to bad there are currently no options for recording through the HDMI port without having the camera connected directly to a computer. I'm sure over time some portable HDMI recorders will be available though.
Yeah, it's a shame. I've been looking / waiting for a portable HDMI recorder for a while now. Video quality is also much better because it usually comes directly uncompressed from the sensor(s) so you can choose to record uncompressed or with your own choice of compression, which is nice.
Yeah, it's a shame. I've been looking / waiting for a portable HDMI recorder for a while now. Video quality is also much better because it usually comes directly uncompressed from the sensor(s) so you can choose to record uncompressed or with your own choice of compression, which is nice.
Oh yeah, I've been waiting a while for that day. Uncompressed recording all the way. It will make transcoded AVCHD to ProRes422 file sizes look tiny (which is scary) haha, but just being able to record uncompressed HD will be amazing.
Yeah, it's a shame. I've been looking / waiting for a portable HDMI recorder for a while now. Video quality is also much better because it usually comes directly uncompressed from the sensor(s) so you can choose to record uncompressed or with your own choice of compression, which is nice.
Oh yeah, I've been waiting a while for that day. Uncompressed recording all the way. It will make transcoded AVCHD to ProRes422 file sizes look tiny (which is scary) haha, but just being able to record uncompressed HD will be amazing.
I know, and that's not even the tip of the iceberg any more. A lot of filmmakers (Anthill Films too) are using the Red One in 4K - which is already twice the horizontal resolution that we can record in. And Red are releasing the Scarlet with an optional sensor that can record in 28K! Obviously we don't actually have the technology to display anything nearly as big, but 4K screens are coming along. It's kinda depressing really...You buy an HD camera and a year later they have 4K.
Post Message
Quote
