Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Video camera recommendation?  (Read 33068 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2008, 12:03:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am sure it will all be flashed based soon, but tape is cheap and easy to collect.

Heck, just hook the camera up to I-movie, scrub to the first frame and go have a cup of coffee.

Still, tape can be fragile, drop frame and of course has to be rewound.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, tape has to be stored rewound, not somewhere in the middle.

Other than that, it's actually very reliable.

And, as you said, the capturing isn't a problem - I'm actually drinking tea, not coffee, but it works all the same (AVCHD capture is quick, but the rendering takes the same time, or more, than tape capture).

Drop frames are actually rare. I heard many people recommend to get good tape, but it is not necessary to buy the expensive HD tape.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
samirkharusi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2008, 11:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps I misunderstand what is going on, but my primary hesitation in jumping onto the AVCHD side is editing, specifically rendering. To render a minute of edited HDV (to mpeg2/m2t, basically to an HDV template) in Vegas Platinum it takes me about a minute of elapsed time. I have not yet found any other codec that goes anywhere as quickly (all seem to take 6+ times as long on a quad PC) and retains the quality of the original. What I seem to hear is that there is no way to render edited AVCHD that quickly. Am I misinformed? Unfortunately for video, the time we spend importing, editing and rendering for export is much, much longer than the shooting. To me, whether the final file size is 3x larger is much less important.

With DV Tapes:
import (one minute per minute)
edit (same as AVCHD)
render to HDV (one minute per minute)
File size: 12 GB per hour, 1080

With AVCHD:
import (very fast) Do you then have to re-codec before editing?
edit (same as HDV)
render to mp4 (? how long for a minute run-time? 6+min per minute?)
File size: 4GB(? to be indistinguishable from the camera capture) per hour, 1080

My conclusion so far: I can live with the 12GB/hour file size but not with 6+ hours to render an hour video. Perhaps I have totally the wrong perspective/understanding?
Logged

Bored? Peruse my website: Samir's Home
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2008, 04:13:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, you have to convert AVCHD upon import, and it takes longer than importing HDV from tape.

This, and the still much better image quality kept me from going AVCHD right now.

Once the image quality is on par, and once you can just drag and drop movie files from the flash drive (like the Panasonic hvx p2 cards/ but it's a different format, not hdv), then I'll look at it again.
Until then, hdv and tapes will be fine for me.

One nice thing though is the complete silence (if you record to flash, not to hard drive) and instant recording, no uuuh-aah-uuuh when the tape drive kicks in.

But, hell or heaven, one can't have everything.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1920



« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2008, 01:20:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Drop frames are actually rare. I heard many people recommend to get good tape, but it is not necessary to buy the expensive HD tape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree - the one absolute essential is to stay with the same brand of tape. Different manufacturers use different tape lubricants and if you stay with the same brand/quality of tape the tapes are almost self-cleaning. If you mix tape brands, the tape lubricants will very likely clog the videoheads resulting in dropouts and frequent head cleaning. This leads to far quicker wear-out of the heads and resulting picture degradation.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2008, 08:34:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have an HV30, and I don't deserve anywhere near the image quality it gives me in any reasonable lighting situation.  It's no Red One, but darn good.

Supposedly the compression artifacts on the flash based cameras are more noticeable than on tape based cameras.

In regards to tape versus flash, those little tape cartridges are dollar for dollar the cheapest way to "back up" your work, and also the method that best preserves the original image quality.

With the flash systems, you are constantly presented with the choice of "deleting forever" footage that you may not want (now!) versus cluttering up your online disc drives or buying a bazillion flash cards.  With tape you just keep everything, transfer if you need it.

Sure it takes time to do the transfers!  But any REAL cinematographer would log his footage anyway, that's a good time to do it.  I transfer my 24P with NEO-HD, I just keep a notepad window open and take notes.  BTW the captured Cineform files flow like water in the Vegas preview window, way cool indeed.
Logged
peterpix2008
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2008, 09:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.,Jun 7 2008, 09:34 PM
I have an HV30, and I don't deserve anywhere near the image quality it gives me in any reasonable lighting situation.  It's no Red One, but darn good.

The question is, is the HV30 broadcast quality?  I 'm planning  a local documentary and while the odds of it being broadcast are slim, I don't want to eliminate the possibility. And if not the HV30, what's the  next step up in camera?  I'm trying not to  spend $3000!

Thanks for comments


Peter
Logged

[span style='color:blue']Peter Randall[/span]

petererandall.com
samirkharusi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2008, 09:55:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peterpix2008,Jun 18 2008, 02:06 PM
Quote from: bill t.,Jun 7 2008, 09:34 PM
I have an HV30, and I don't deserve anywhere near the image quality it gives me in any reasonable lighting situation.  It's no Red One, but darn good.

The question is, is the HV30 broadcast quality?  I 'm planning  a local documentary and while the odds of it being broadcast are slim, I don't want to eliminate the possibility. And if not the HV30, what's the  next step up in camera?  I'm trying not to  spend $3000!

Thanks for comments
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which broadcast quality? SD? It should be far, far superior to any SD broadcast. But I would say that if you compare it to a BluRay movie disc at 1080, eg Casino Royal,  then you really have to be very careful in your (manual) exposure and sound settings to arrive at something even approaching a comparison. But that is comparing to the ultimate in home theatre. IMHO the HV20 that I use is weakest in sound (too sensitive to the slightest breeze, so you are far better off with off-board mikes) and it has a tendency to over-expose small highlights; perhaps indicative of restricted dynamic range. If you are switching from shooting SD, even at the broadcast level, you will very quickly wonder how you ever tolerated such atrocious quality.
Logged

Bored? Peruse my website: Samir's Home
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2008, 12:03:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The HV30 is not broadcast quality, if you consider that to be what you get from the best ENG or studio cameras.

It gives really-good-looking results in sunlight or fairly bright interiors.  Or think of it as giving good results in the kind of lighting most professional videographers would strive to get if they could.

It is much less good on low contrast or dark subjects where the elaborate camera controls and better sensors of more expensive cameras can save the day.  It is much harder to pull-out a decent image on these kinds of subjects.  With any kind of camera you basically have to do your adjustments in the camera to get the best results, with the HV30 (and all of its brethren) you must often resort to post...hello noise, hello clipping, blah blah blah.

In theory you can work with the HV30's mostly automatic settings by always lighting carefully, pack lots of shiny reflectors to pump up contrast in interiors or days with flat lighting, maybe a couple Lowell lights or such.  And pack at least one assistant to hold same, maybe he or she can hold the reflector in their teeth while dealing with the mic.  If you must go low contrast, be sure it's BRIGHT low contrast.  Personally, if I were a one man crew I'd opt for a better camera if the budget would allow, but I would use an HV30 with only moderate kicking and screaming.

One should note that a many obviously consumer DV and HDV quality documentaries are being picked up by say PBS and others.  I saw a PBS documentary on the astronomer John Dobson the other night, the video quality was clearly consumer DV at best, way below what could have been done with an HV30.  But hey, so what?  The information was there and well presented.  But again, how many excellent pieces never make it to the air for tech reasons, dunno.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 12:09:02 AM by bill t. » Logged
peterpix2008
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2008, 12:10:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.,Jun 19 2008, 01:03 AM
The HV30 is not broadcast quality, if you consider that to be what you get from the best ENG or studio cameras.



What about a Canon GL2?

Peter
Logged

[span style='color:blue']Peter Randall[/span]

petererandall.com
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad