It is my understanding the Sony A1U has a 4:2:0 chroma subsampling which supposedly does not lend itself that well for chromakey. I don't do this, so not that versed on the details, but you can find threads here and a wikipedia.org topic on chroma subsampling to help you understand if this is going to be an issue for you.

I also believe it is discussed in Douglas Spotted Eagle's book, HDV: What you need to Know - an excellent reference IMO. Found at www.vasst.com

This is true for all the DV cameras, whether HDV or not. You can get good chroma keys if you take the time and make the effort to light it properly, and then use decent keying software. But if you're doing mostly chroma key work it is best to get out of the DV/HDV world, I think. And the cheapest thing in that realm would be the HVX200, and while it would be better for chroma key work, it would not be better for some other things. If you're editing with FCP, then chroma keying DV/HDV is a bit of a hassle; I've got better keys with Avid's keying but with FCP bought DVGarage (I can't recall the exact name, something like that) and its keying was better. Still, you have to put forth more effort to get decent keys, and the wider your shot the more problematic it becomes.

This thread is overwhelming and frankly after sifting though pages I am still a bit lost. Possibly can someone direct me to where i need to be looking?
Or answer these Questions

1) Where can I find a trusting source to purchase used cameras online?
2) Where can I find a local place to rent camera and equipment?
3) What the lowest price pro camera for shooting weddings? with good low light capabilities, haven’t decided if I want to invest in HD.


My background:
I am really into editing and have specialized in special events. I want/need to learn camera techniques to expand business opportunities. I want a camera that is reasonably priced, the lower the better (but who doesn’t?). Beginner friendly, but also have room to grow. Also room to be flexible like sporting events and possible underwater capabilities.
I understand there is no one perfect camera

1. Our trusted sponsor B&H has a used video gear section on their website www.bhphotovideo.com

3. Pro means different things for different people. Event videographers love the high end prosumer/low end professional Sony PD150/170 for its excellent low light capability and B&H occasionally has a used one for sale. When you decide to go HD, you have a host of options, again some Sony cameras are good in low light.

2. Google

when you purchase your XH A1 :) call up Canon and get a list of official dealers

2. Google

when you purchase your XH A1 :) call up Canon and get a list of official dealers

Are there any camera, mic rental places in Orlando that you know of?

Hey folks, i am about to step into the HD/HDV world with a camera purchase. I have been shooting with a PD-170 and a JVC DV500.
I will be shooting interviews(some green screen), documentary field productions. I also will be renting out my services for day shoots (so compatibility with other productions companies equipment is of some concern).

I have been looking at the staples...Pan HVX200, Sony V7U, JVC HD200. I have just recently began to look at Canon, such as the A1 and the G1, although i am not sure what the G1 does that the A1 doesn't.

The idea of flash storage appeals to me, but also does the idea of the ability to downconvert to SD 16:9(which, sadly, seems to discount the Pan HVX200). Most of my current stuff will be mastered to SD but would like to at least show it in 16:9. IO would, however, like to acquire footage in HD and have the option to master in HD or SD.

I want to pull the trigger on the Panasonic but am apprehensive due to the previous issue and the issue with older CCDs, although the picture quality says more than any specs can say.

So, with that, let me know what you guys think. I probably could add more info here, but i have to go for now. I will try to check back later and add more if needed.


thanks

The idea of flash storage appeals to me, but also does the idea of the ability to downconvert to SD 16:9

I encourage you to do the down-conversion in the computer (which works for any camera) instead of in the camera. You can use better algorithms (sinc, lanzcos) and codecs.

You probably didn't mention the EX-1 because you need long-form recording at a low price; but if you can make it work with just a few extra 8 GB cards, I would encourage you to justify the expense.

David...

If you're used to shooting with a PD-170 then you might want to look at the EX1 and not the HVX. I work with both and the EX1's ability to capture images under low light is far better than the HVX.

The EX1 also provides 3 times more recording time per gigabyte then the HVX.

David, the G1 is the same but has what they call the Jack Pack, giving you some cool outputs and genlock capability. For most of us it's not worth the extra money, unless you do lots of multi camaera shoots.

I have done the in-camera downconvert directly to DVCAM tape and it looked the same as when I've downconverted in the computer, so that's a good feature.

The HVX200 will cost you a lot more by the time you buy enough P2 cards to shoot for a day. If you're doing documentary work, I would not recommend it unless you can afford plenty of cards, and then have the time to load all your footage and make backups on hard drives or DLT or something.

As far as compatibility with others...if they have an HDV deck, and if you shoot in the 60i mode, you'll be fine. But Canon's 24 frames per second mode won't play in a Sony deck (and neither will JVC's for that matter). But at least you can give someone a tape. With the HVX you would have to take the camera and load the footage and then make a tape using a deck.

You might also want to look at the new Sony Z7, which is HDV but also will record to a flash memory device that attaches to the back. These cards are relatively cheap, compared to P2. However, before getting too far into tapeless recording, give some serious thought to the workflow. I have a documentary going now that's into close to 30 tapes. That would be a lot of hours of capturing footage, making backups, then making DLT or BluRay backups because I wouldn't want all my original footage living only on a hard drive. The irony of using DLT (tape) to archive a tapeless format is definitely there, but that's what lots of folks do. Sony has a small, cheap (relatively--it's about $2500) burner that you can use to make XDCAM HD discs of your EX1 footage, which is nice. But you still have to capture the footage and then make the discs. If you're out of town on a documentary shoot, this would be problematic unless you could afford enough cards to get you through the shoot. Same holds true for P2. With the EX, however, you get more footage per card, so it's not quite as much of a problem.

Hey folks, i am about to step into the HD/HDV world with a camera purchase.

...

I want to pull the trigger on the Panasonic but ...

Well... I think you should wait until after the news at NAB. This is a bad time to buy a camera. a week or two from now you might need to make a totally different decision.

I don't normally advocate waiting like that- but NAB is just a week or so away now. (April 11-17)

If I were buying right now then I'd look seriously at the Sony PMW-EX1, The Panasonic HPX500 and the Panasoninc HVX 200. That's it.

So you have my actual advice to wait, and a few choices if you have to buy right now.

As far as the difference between the Canon XH-G1 and XH-A1... as someone else alluded its the "Jack Pack." The most important feature there is HD/SDI output, which effectively can turn that camera into a 1920x1080 4:2:2 camera recording any codec you choose. That and the ability noted elsewhere to do genlock for multicamera productions. Its something you may never use- but you definitely should look into it... because if you do need it is worth far more than the price difference.

well guys sorry for interrupting but i read so many threads in so many places but still didn't get the difference between 24p and 25p or 50i/60i it seems so complicated which i don't even want to know anymore.... anyway Im a wedding videographer usually and sometimes Events like concerts, and now trying to move from DV to HD, i just want to know what is the best frame rate when filming a wedding movie i think concerts and weddings are the same except the lighting part, quality matters a lot
Thank You guys and sorry if I'm asking in wrong place

still didn't get the difference between 24p and 25p or 50i/60i it seems so complicated which i don't even want to know anymore
All you need to know is that 60i mode is the best except maybe in low light. ;)

If you're not sure and you've no time to shoot and critically evaluate some A / B test footage, I'd say stick to capturing clean, unfiltered, default shutter speed, interlaced footage. You can then muck about with it in post to give you all sorts of clever arty effects, but your client base (beautiful brides) may not want to have it looking thus up front and irreversible.

tom.

For weddings the only advantage to 24fps would be that you might gain a half stop or so under low light because you'd be shooting 24 frames per second at a 1/48 shutter speed, over 30 frames per second at a 1/60 shutter speed.

As far as 50i/60i, 50i/25fps is for PAL countries. In NTSCland we have 60i/30fps.

All you need to know is that 60i mode is the best except maybe in low light. ;)

so guys ur saying that interlace is better than progressive in my work anyway i wanted to add that im in a pal country but once i heard that NTSC works on Pal but PAL wont work on NTSC, if thats true i can work NTSC because now Camcorders usually shoot in both modes. but guys isnt 25p less art effects than 50i ? or i got that wrong too ?

24p is the "film look" - unless you're after that, just shoot interlaced. The main difference is that 24p has an almost jerky look - depends on the viewer's eye (and how you train your eye), but most of us can see that you have a series of still images; with interlaced, the picture is so smooth, you can't tell it's a series of stills.

While NTSC camcorders are less expensive (if bought in the USA), don't get fooled by the idea that "NTSC works on Pal but PAL wont work on NTSC" - it's not that simple. Not sure exactly what are you referring to here, but if you are talking about DVD players and TV sets, the affirmation is only half true. While *some* DVD players will play both standards, some won't - and the same is true over here in the States, I have 3 DVD players, all play PAL (output NTSC) but not all players will do that.

I think it's safe to advise you to keep shooting 50i/PAL at least until you get a deeper understanding of the different modes/frame rates; then decide what to do. In any case, shooting 60i won't do much good to you, the two modes you might think about are 50i and 24p.

I hope this helps.

P.S. You have a very nice website!

Thanks Ervin it was helpfull

ok for now i will stick with 50i and 24p but why not 25p ?
now on my weddings i use different kind of camcorders like usually my wedding are 4 cameras the one on Jimmy jib is Dsr-400 with 4.8 wide angle on steadycam also
on tripod is dsr-250 and on the floor small camera Dsr-170 thats why im thinking now because its hard to decide which camera to buy i was thinking of buying One EX1 and two Z7's or instead two Z7's one z7 and one S270.
like this i can use the s270 on the jimmy jib with a wide lense and ex1 on the floor and the other on the tripod and when i need one for steady i rent one s270 i think all of these cameras can shoot 50i or 24p
what do u think ?
and one another thing guys i was today one of sony dealer shops he told me that if i wanna put 2/3 lens on z7 it needs converter which wont give us the true quality of 2/3 is that true ?

thanks about the website Ervin in 2 days it will be finalized u can check again

OK so I am brand new to DV and pretty much have no idea what I'm doing but am finally in a position to start learning (the hard way or course). I'm looking to complete at least one short film this year and then hopefully get to work on an (ultra) low budget feature. Anyway, in the market for a camera and after reading several pages of this thread got dizzy and decided to just throw myself on the mercy of the experts. Here are the things that characterize my possible projects

edited on Final Cut Pro 5

some will be shot in Black and White

Looking to get as close to a "film look" as possible (just like everyone, I know)

Low light performance is a big plus

different aspect ratios (depending on project)

intend to do some post production tinkering with the image (don't know if that matters)


I took a long hard look at the GL2 but was unimpressed by a lot of the reviews, recently I've looked at the Panasonic AG-DVX100B and it looked a lot better suited to my needs. I've also taken a glance at the Sony HVR-A1U but since I really don't know exactly what I'm doing I'd like to get some opinions before I drop any cash. I'd love to stay in the $2000 range. Thanks

I would go with an HDV camera-- in this case the A1U --because of a number of issues:

-compositing/special effects/post-processing always works better at higher resolution
-but you can film in HDV and import as DV if you don't need the higher resolution
-the light sensors on those Sony HDV cameras really do excellently in low light. I've shot a lot of footage with a Z1U, which I think has the same basic optical/processing hardware, and it's done excellently in low light. Better than Panasonic, in my humble opinion (though not by much)
-any camera will let you shoot interlaced (60i), but if you deinterlace in Final Cut/After Effects, to emulate a progressive scan image, it looks more film-like. 30p and 24p don't look that different. I personally think that the "film look" is more in progressive, whole frames than it is in framerate. That's my personal belief.
-the Panasonic HVX-200 (now HVX-200a, or the upcoming HPX-170) really wins the versatility battle, allowing you to shoot overcranked, fluid slo-mo footage, DV/HD, 16:9/4:3, etc..., but for over double what you're looking to spend. Plus, P2 cards aren't everyone's favorite. (I work with them just fine, and absolutely love the HVX-200.)
-the Sony A1U, V1U, Z1U cameras will let you shoot in 16:9 or 4:3, but the Panasonic DVX-100/a/b only shoots in 4:3 unless you use an expensive optical matte box, which you may not want to bother with. If you get the A1U and shoot everything in HD 16:9 you can crop and down-compress to DV at any point. And the whole thing is shot on cheaper, easier to archive tapes--less hassle than P2 cards.

A1U is probably your winner, combining a beautiful picture, plenty of options (though not as many as a Pana P2 camera), and a really affordable price. That's my recommendation, though you'll get made fun of in some circles for shooting on HDV-- it's not "true" HD. It'll look great, though. Just deinterlace in post-production.

For your price range the A1U is a good choice, but not great in low light. You could stretch a little upwards and go for the Canon XH A1 / Sony FX7 series. Or maybe go down the chain to the Canon HV30, which might get you closer to the film look, since you could buy the most imporant "film look" tools - decent lighting and sound equipment ... and maybe a good writing, acting, and/or directing class.

Keep in mind editing HDV might add some overhead to your editing workflow: money + time.

"For your price range the A1U is a good choice, but not great in low light."

Again, I haven't worked with the A1U, but the Z1U and V1U take excellent pictures in low lighting, in my opinion. I've seen test results comparing low light footage from the DV generation, and I believe that the Sony did the best. I own a Canon, work with 2 Sony cameras and a few Panasonic, and from my experience the Z1U and V1U take the best footage in low light.

As far as whether or not the A1U and the Z/V1U have the same imaging hardware... I believe they do, but I haven't confirmed that. Those are my two bits!

The A1U is a single chip camera (1/3"), the Z1U has 1/3" chips and the V1U has 1/4" chips.

So the V1U and Z1U have 3 chips, of their respective sizes?

It says on one site (below) that the Z1U used CCD sensors, whereas the V1U and A1U use the CMOS sensor. CMOS sensors don't do as well in low-light, but also have different properties that are quite desirable. Looks like the A1U isn't going to be quite as good in low light as the Z1U (the Sony I've spent more time with in low light).

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/video_sony_hvrau/

On CMOS: (there's a section comparing it to CCD sensors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

Get your hands on a few of these, take footage with each, and see what you like. That's really the way to know what will work for you.

Yes, they are 3-chip cameras. The V1U and A1U have CMOS chips, while the Z1U has CCDs. The Z1U therefore would be the best under low light. However, the differences between all the HDV cameras is small when it comes to that. It takes light to make movies. If you're shooting TV news or something where you may not be able to light, then a larger 2/3" chip camera would be best.

Hello, being new here I have enjoyed reading the many posts; and now I have a few questions-

I wish to transfer many old super 8 and 8mm films via the workprinter xp. In order to use the workprinter I need a Camcorder with a FireWire output ( iLink ) This seems to cut down my options on which camcorder I should use.

The camcorder must have the following: at least a 12x optical lens & Firewire

What I dont know is if using a ' new ' HD Camcorder will be of any help or if I should stay with a ' Good ' SD camcorder.

My budget puts me at $2000.00 -

Any ideas?

Hello, being new here I have enjoyed reading the many posts; and now I have a few questions-

I wish to transfer many old super 8 and 8mm films via the workprinter xp. In order to use the workprinter I need a Camcorder with a FireWire output ( iLink ) This seems to cut down my options on which camcorder I should use.

The camcorder must have the following: at least a 12x optical lens & Firewire

What I dont know is if using a ' new ' HD Camcorder will be of any help or if I should stay with a ' Good ' SD camcorder.

My budget puts me at $2000.00 -

Any ideas?

Hi Mark,
Welcome to the forums.

As far as needing a camcorder that is equipped with firewire, just about every tape based entry level-to-semi-pro camcorder produced in the last several years will have a firewire port (also called iLink or iEEE1394) Some of the more recent exceptions might include the lousy mini-DVD camcorders as well as some of the hard drive and flash-based units - many of which will have USB 2.0 ports which will not work for your intended purposes.

As far as the firewire port, your selection landscape will be pretty vast.

As far as your HD or SD question, here is a quote from Roger's FAQ page on the Moviestuff site:
---------------

Q: "Will the WorkPrinter units work with my HD camera?

A: Not at this time, though you can use the HD camera in the SD mode. We are working towards an HD solution that is practical but are waiting to see if the market conforms to one delivery standard."
---------------

The FAQ doesn't go into any detail about WHY it won't work with the HD camera, but I can guess on a few points.

The resolution capacities of an average 1080i HDV camcorder more naturally conforms to the theoretical resolve of the 8mm film frame. But in my opinion, from the many many hundreds of home movie reels I've seen and/or restored, I really doubt the increase in pixels is really going to be of much benefit to the quality of the captured image. (Unless the 8mm was exceptionally shot and well preserved.) - (I'm probably going to prove myself wrong with this in due time.) With larger gauge film such as 16mm, the difference in quality between SD and HD would likely be much more evident.

I've been transferring film for a couple of years now with the Workprinter and my Canon XL2 in SD 4:3. I am constantly impressed with the quality of the transfers, which so far has always far exceeded the quality of some of the more traditional consumer level transfer methods, and always looks much better than anyone ever remembers seeing the footage projected against their living room walls in past decades.

In any case, with the Workprinter system, you are not actually recording the captured frames with the camcorder itself. So the HDV issue is irrelevant. But the capture software that is designed to work with the Workprinter captures in SD (.avi on PC, and .mov or .dv on Mac). These applications capture in 4:3 which is also appropriate for 8mm and Super 8.

HDV camcorders I've seen shoot in 16:9, which presents issues with the 4:3 Super 8 and 8mm source content.

I have read about a company that uses a Moviestuff device to capture to true HD via HD-SDI, but they indicated the need for modified gear and I'm not certain of the methods they are using for frame-by-frame capture.

If you are planning on doing some other types of productions and want to be future proof for at least a few years yet, you could still consider a Hi-Rez cam, but you might need to look into one that offers a 4:3 SD option to make sure it will work well with your Workprinter. (Despite regular protestations from recent HDV adopters, SD videography will continue to be around for several years.)

You can always give Roger a call (at Moviestuff ) if you need more accurate and up-to-date info on this topic. He often answers the phone himself and is very generous with his time by answering any questions you may have.

If you opt to buy a Standard Definition camcorder, there are some great older models that are well-loved in the industry - and you could get some great deals within your price range, especially if you get a good 2nd-hand unit.

Some older trusty models to consider might include the Sony PD150 or PD170 as well as the VX2100. There is also the widely popular DVX100 series. A little smaller form factor can be found in the Canon GL2, but it is also a great cam. Any of these will provide great results if properly used in conjunction with the Workprinter.

I've shot with the DVX, the PD170 and the GL2, and I love them all. I really love my XL2, but that model is usually priced above your stated budget range.

What you'll really make sure to look for is a nice quality 3-chip camcorder with a great piece of glass and a good complement of manual controls. There are other camera that I am sure will work well for your purposes and give astounding results, but I can't really comment beyond just the models I've used myself.

Hope this helps.

Have fun.

-Jon

HDV camcorders I've seen shoot in 16:9, which presents issues with the 4:3 Super 8 and 8mm source content. -Jon

Must say I've not found the aspect ratio difference to be a problem when I transfer 3:4 film footage (Standard-8 and Super-8) to HDV. On the timeline I simply add black bars left and right of the 4:3 image, so that on an HD TV the picture will maintain the correct aspect ratio.

Of course modern upscaling DVD players will make an SD transfer of the film look pretty good, but a genuine transfer to HDV is even better.

tom.

Hello -

thank you both for your quick replies.

Jon, I had spoken with Roger about a month ago prior to ordering my workprinter. We covered many topics ( it was a lot of info in a very short amount of time on the phone :-)) I did not ask him specifically about HD Cameras - had been reading up in various Internet Forums and that is why I figured I would ask here in the Forum. There are a lot of workprinter customers out there, but as far as recommended cameras - rather little feedback..

The newer cameras seem to be going away ( from what I have seen ) from firewire to usb ( in the under 2000.- price category,)

I had been leaning towards the GL2 ( canon has a great rebate on it right now ) because it seems to offer the best deal for the money on lens and options- as I said I just wanted to ask some more experienced users for their opinion.

I am really anxious to see how well this whole set up works!

Mark

Of course modern upscaling DVD players will make an SD transfer of the film look pretty good, but a genuine transfer to HDV is even better.

tom.

That makes perfect sense, more pixel data to work well for a better upscaling.

Does the capture software work well with the incoming 16:9? (Cinecap or CaptureMate?) It would be interesting to note why the FAQ indicates incompatibility with HD.

-Jon

I have been trying to decide what to buy for a while! I need something I can shoot fast motin with in low light, and still get great image quality, I would preffer something I can change lenses as well. I have looked at Canon's stuff and think I may be stuck shooting standard deff to avoid the horrible gop issues with high deff compression. does anyone have any advise? I shoot lots of racing videos, I would also like to shoot nature and scenic videos. I plan to shoot s short documentary in the future as well.

I use a PD170 to shoot racing videos, due to the low light capabilities.
advantages: fairly cheap since its 4:3 native, and not HD
Disadvantages: its 4:3 native, and not HD

Dear Patrick,

I shoot drag boat racing videos. Our team does the liquid quarter mile in under 5 seconds with a clocked speed of over 248 mph (after coasting the last 300 feet!). In order to keep up with the boat I have to do some fast pans.

The Canon XL H1, with the long GOP. works very well for this.

Long GOP allows for a high level of detail and for a high degree of compression. There are proper techniques for editing long GOP's, but it is desirable in many cases to convert the ".mpg" to an ".avi" to remove the long GOP structure.

Experts that have actually used this camera do not describe it as "horrible long-GOP".

There are tremendous advantages when shooting HD.

For example, with the high resolution that the XL H1/ XH A1/ XH G1 / etc. provides you with the ability to zoom in, in post, to get the actual framing you want. This is a huge advantage over shooting in HD.

Unless you are a perfect cameraman, it is difficult to zoom in and correctly keep your fast moving subject tight in the frame. Doing it in post works great.
If your target is a DVD, then you have plenty of resolution, even after you zoom in and pan in post.

I can testify to the low light capabilities of the pd170. Compared to a Canon HV20, the pd170 had about a 20 ire, which neatly works out to be 20%, difference.

Now, that's very much like comparing toadstools to gold fish but its something to consider.

Hi Jonathan,

this thread has jumped around a bit! :-)
based upon what I have read here in the forum and in other areas online I will be purchasing a canon GL2 for my work with the workprinter xp. I have been looking into which raid set up I wil be using with my macbook pro and have decided to go with the Sonnet Fusion F2 external raid - according to sonnet it should be fast enough -
Somewhere here in the thousands of posts I had read that one can read the personal classifieds when one has been a member for 30 days... but I am still not getting access - or I cant find them in this column.
At any rate, I am looking for a good canon.
At the moment an HD Camera will not be of any help, because the capture software ( at least the way I understood it ) is not capable of processing the frames as HD.

Hello All

Greetings from India.

I have read almost all these post and I am very impressed and gratefull for the wealth of information that can be found in this forum.

BRIEF DEsCRIPTION OF WHAT I DO
I am video producer making 30 sec informative videos for the web. There are a couple of directory listing company's that give a free 30 sec video to all company's and individuals who sing up for their service. SO whenver a client signs up, I get the call to go and shoot this video for this client and the directory listing comapny pays me. I basically have been shooting on Sony PD 170 , edit it on Final Cut pro, compress it and upload it to the web.

I use three to four teams, to film atleast 20 clients every day. These teams consist of a camera person and an assistant and they go on a motor bike with the camera, tripod and a basic hand held light.

My question

WHICH CAMERA IS BETTER SUITED FOR THE WEB?

I DONT REALLY NEED A BRODCAST QUALITY CAMERA TO SHOOT THESE VIDEOS AS I HAVE TO EVNTUALLY COMPRESS THEM FOR THE WEB.

Is there another video camera that is better sutied for the web?

Appreciate some light on this matter

Regards
Arun Balchandar

Really.. any camera that allows you to dump into an editable format in your editing software of choice. DV is tried and true, if you need higher res hit HDV, etc.

Since your quality limited (compress to web), invest a little less in the camera and more in mic/sound and a light kit (doesn't need to be fancy - just know how to use it).

Sounds like you've got a pretty workable system already, but it may be showing its age. To spin a phrase.. If it's broke, feel free to fix it. =)

If your camera is in good condition, it's probably perfect for what you're doing. No need to change unless it dies.

Hi Patrick and Bill

Thanks for yur suggestions. I went ahead and bought a Sony VX2100 to save some money for accesories and light kit. I plant to rent a Sony PD 170 as well.

thanks
Arun Balchandar
Chennai, India

Hi DV folks,

I’m looking to upgrade my current video setup, and -- not being a professional at all -- could use some advice, Background / usage: I’m a high school dance teacher and mostly use video for documentation of my student performances (as well as in class - instant feedback). So I need something with pretty decent low-light capabilities, as I shoot in a darkened theater a lot (although the stage itself is well-lit).

For the last 5 years I’ve been working with a Sony DCR-TRV38 DV recorder. It seems to have a good lens and I’ve appreciated the quality of video I get in the theater (especially for home-video consumer model). But it doesn’t seem to be as dependable as I would like -- had to take it in for repair already a few years back, and now the sound is often severely corrupted -- so I figured it’s time to upgrade.

I have sworn by Canon for my still cameras for years, not least because the engineering seems dependable (have never had any kind of repair problem). So I would like to get a Canon for video as well. I have read a little about the newer recorders that shoot to internal flash drive + memory card instead of digital video tape, and wondered if that might be the way to go -- would undoubtedly save some time on the capture end of things, I think. I read a couple of good reviews of Canon’s HF10, and I’m just about ready to jump

So, here are my main questions (sorry if this post is getting awfully long!):
1. Stupid/ignorant amateur question first: if I go with a flash drive/memory card camera, how will the video download onto my computer -- is there still a real-time capture process, or is it more direct (I’m envisioning the way my still photos automatically download as JPEG files)? Is there anything about this system I haven’t thought of that I need to know about? I use Final Cut Express for editing, and I see that the latest version (to which I need to upgrade anyway) does support AVCHD...

2. Specifics -- my main concern, after reading the reviews of the HF10, is that apparently the higher # of pixels does mean lower light-sensitivity... I worry that that might be a problem in the theater -- but again, I’m not really comparing the performance against professional models, or even the bet consumer model on the market right now, but against my 5-year-old Sony TRV38 -- could the low-light performance actually be worse than a 5-year-old camera (given the jumps in technology since then)? I’m looking for a step up from my Sony, but I’m a teacher not a professional so a high-end consumer model rather than a professional camera is really still what I need, I think.

3. Anything else I haven’t thought of that should be glaring me in the face?

Thanks for reading this long post, I’d appreciate any advice!

Hello Avilee and welcome to DVinfo!


1. Stupid/ignorant amateur question first: if I go with a flash drive/memory card camera, how will the video download onto my computer -- is there still a real-time capture process, or is it more direct (I’m envisioning the way my still photos automatically download as JPEG files)? Is there anything about this system I haven’t thought of that I need to know about? I use Final Cut Express for editing, and I see that the latest version (to which I need to upgrade anyway) does support AVCHD...

You'll just pop the flash memory out of the camera, pop it into a flash memory card reader on your computer (which you probably already have from doing still photography) and transfer your files! Many cameras are also equipped with USB for transfer directly from the camera, but that can be slower than using a dedicated flash drive. Easy to do and you should be able to jump straight to editing if you've got the proper software.

2. Specifics -- my main concern, after reading the reviews of the HF10, is that apparently the higher # of pixels does mean lower light-sensitivity... I worry that that might be a problem in the theater -- but again, I’m not really comparing the performance against professional models, or even the bet consumer model on the market right now, but against my 5-year-old Sony TRV38 -- could the low-light performance actually be worse than a 5-year-old camera (given the jumps in technology since then)? I’m looking for a step up from my Sony, but I’m a teacher not a professional so a high-end consumer model rather than a professional camera is really still what I need, I think.

You're correct, higher number of pixels does not mean better low-light sensitivity. Generally speaking, consumer, and even many prosumer, grade HD cameras have much worse low-light sensitivity than SD cameras. I've not used the HF10 myself, but from what I've read, it does have a number of manual controls, including manual shutter and iris, which should allow you to make the most of what light is available. Your low-light performance will probably be worse than what you have now, but the benefit is that what you will get with an HD camera will be much more crisp than your current SD camera which means that even in lower light, your outlines and features should be much easier to see clearly. I feel your frustrations with low-light and dance. I do a lot of the video work for the dance classes at the college where I work and the instructor will frequently use very little light on the stage, even going so far as doing silhouetting, that even with a good SD camera like the GL2 or the VX2000 I had trouble getting enough light without ruining it through the noise of the gain. All that said, I wouldn't let that scare me away from making the move to HD. In fact, it didn't. I'm now using an XHA1 (just got it this summer) and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with the dance stuff.

3. Anything else I haven’t thought of that should be glaring me in the face?

Thanks for reading this long post, I’d appreciate any advice!

Maybe. Have you given much thought to your workflow with a tapeless camera? Even though they're quickly coming down in price, flash memory is still too expensive to really archive well. Computer hard drives are too finicky and prone to mechanical failure to be a reliable archival method. With HD video, archiving to DVD is time-consuming and requires a lot of DVDs (unless you can get DVD-9s or Blu-Ray). If you're shooting stuff that goes into the computer to edit, out to DVD, and is done with, then you should be okay. But if you want to be able to archive your work (I imagine you keep tapes of your dance recitals, etc.), then you're going to have to figure that out. It's not a major thing, just something to think about.

Also, editing AVCHD material is much more machine-intensive than editing DV material. If you've got a fairly new Mac, you should be okay, but I've read that for editing AVCHD you are best off with a multi-core machine and several GB of memory. I'm editing HDV with the Canon XHA1 on a quad-core with 4GB of Ram and it runs okay, though I can still tell a difference between it and DV, even with DV done on a much slower machine.

Definitely don't let HD scare you--the footage you'll get will blow you away! Have fun!

Hi David,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply... Since I posted all those questions, I discovered that Final Cut only supports AVCHD technology on Intel-based Macs (damn!). Since I'm not quite ready to throw over my trusty G4 machine (or learn a whole new editing program), I'm considering going with the HV30 instead (the equivalent to the HF10 but using DV) -- which does have a slightly better sensor and is highly rated by at least one reviewer... Maybe I'll try for the solid-state camera in a few years, when they're a little less new and I need a new computer anyhow. In the meantime, your XH A1 sounds pretty tempting -- I'm not sure I'm ready for a professional recorder yet, but I may take a look when I actually get out there...

thanks again for your help.
Avilee

Since I posted all those questions, I discovered that Final Cut only supports AVCHD technology on Intel-based Macs (damn!). Since I'm not quite ready to throw over my trusty G4 machine (or learn a whole new editing program),

...

Maybe I'll try for the solid-state camera in a few years, when they're a little less new and I need a new computer anyhow.

If you are going to work in HD, then the time for a new computer is now.

Working with HD is extremely taxing to your computer- even if you have a brand spanking new 8 core Mac Pro.

Seriously, any Macbook Pro (including the oldest Core 1 processor based units) will dramatically outperform your G4 for HD editing.

Heck they are close to on par with my Dual 2.7GHz G5 for most tasks, but they are often faster for HD post production due to the newer feature set of the hardware. (New SSE and GPU instructions) So even with a much newer machine the laptops are an overall upgrade for me.

Working with HD is extremely taxing to your computer- even if you have a brand spanking new 8 core Mac Pro.
Your statement might be true for professionals making a living with video, their time is money... but for some people here on the forum editing HDV is just a hobby. I am editing HDV on a 4 year old plain office Dell P4 @ 3GHz with 2GB of RAM and it's just fine.

Your statement might be true for professionals making a living with video, their time is money... but for some people here on the forum editing HDV is just a hobby. I am editing HDV on a 4 year old plain office Dell P4 @ 3GHz with 2GB of RAM and it's just fine.

There is a huge difference between your relatively modern Dell P4 and a G4.

The very newest G4 was released in June 2003. The fastest G4 available is a dual CPU at 1.42GHz, released January 2003. It has a 167MHz bus, uses PATA drives (with compatibility issues). The fastest CPU available is 1.8GHz.

Sad to say, because I am an Apple fanboy, but your P4 has aged better than this gentleman's G4. Apple's transition to Intel has really changed the life span of those machines.

Like I said, even the most modest Intel Mac will seriously outperform his G4 for HD video. I talked about a Macbook Pro... but I've worked with HD on the dual core Macbook and Intel Mac Mini, and by comparison to ANY G4 its buttery smooth on those machines.

So, in closing- even for a hobbyist who will never make a dime- I recommend an upgrade from any G4 or older PowerPC Mac to an Intel Mac that supports the minimum requirements for Final Cut Studio 2 (http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs/). While you are at it though, I'd make sure it was Color Compatible too (See "Color Specific Requirements" at the link above.)

Most Intel iMacs and Macbook Pros fit the bill. While they would be an upgrade froma G4, stay away from "Core 1" Intel Macs, go for the Core 2 units instead, and definitely get dual core.

There is little difference between a 5 year old G4 and a 4 year old P4. The G4 can easily be updated to SATA drives if necessary or use external Firewire 800 drives for HD. The real limitation will be the software. The current versions of Final Cut Studio, iMovie and Final Cut Express all require a G5 of faster and OS 10.4.11 Newer cameras may not be supported by the "old" software so you're in a Catch-22.

Updating old machines may be a case of throwing good money after bad. Upgrading drives, video cards, old software etc. can easily cost hundreds and dollars. If the machine has electrical issues you may not be able to get the parts etc. for an older G4. So ultimately you'd be best served by getting the least expensive iMac (currently $1199). You would also get the necessary software for newer cameras. Apple offers discounts to students and employees of most larger corporations, city, county, state, federal employees etc.

Just as a test I edited a video for a local Country Club/Yacht Club using iMovie '06 HD and it had no problem with the footage from a Sony HDR-HC1. Many people are not aware that the G4's had better FireWire implementations until the last of the G5's.

Wow -- I had fallen out of touch with this discussion for a while, in the heat of getting ready for the new school year -- and now I find I have quite a lot to think about! Thank you all for your considered advice -- the next time I will really need to get excellent footage is in the spring, so I will be thinking during the fall about whether I'm ready to go ahead and upgrade to a new Mac, and then get the AVCHD camera...

(just by the way to Alexander, I'm not a "gentleman" -- watch out for those assumptions when you find a name you haven't seen before!)

thanks again,
Avilee

There is little difference between a 5 year old G4 and a 4 year old P4. The G4 can easily be updated to ... Many people are not aware that the G4's had better FireWire implementations until the last of the G5's.

I disagree that the G4 is easily updated, mostly because of parts availability.

While its technically true that the Firewire implementation was better on G4's than early G5's... the difference is moot in my experience. I've never encountered a flaw on any of my G5 machines with any firewire device on any port. How do you beat that?

This however is all irrelevant because I agree with Jeff's point that the cost of any upgrades to make the machine serviceable will be sufficient to purchase an Intel Mac of some sort with far superior performance. Also no upgrade will ever gain you the software compatibility Jeff rightly brings up.

Avilee,

I apologize for my confusion and for any offense to your dignity caused by my error.

Okay, looking in on this again after another long break, and re-read the specifics about the OS & Final Cut. I did have my computer in to the shop over the summer (on account of an optical drive problem), and had them install OS 10.4.11, specifically so I could upgrade to the newest version of FCE. So the software would not be a problem, it seems to be working just fine on my machine so far (with footage from my old Sony, of course).

So, here's my dilemma -- I'm really attracted by the idea of the solid-state camera, it just seems to me that the fewer moving parts to go wrong the better... but on the other hand, trashing a perfectly good computer goes completely against my basic ethical system (that's a big part of how the world got in the mess we're in, but that's another story). I was also told by one of the techs at our local Mac place that he thought the AVCHD cameras were a little too new and maybe not quite ready for prime time, and if it were him he would go with the equivalent DV camera... but of course his specialty is Macs, not cameras, so I don't know how trustworthy that might be.

So here's my latest thought -- it might be handy to have a really functional laptop anyway (my iBook is from the fruit-colored clamshell era, going on nine years old, I think, and I haven't really used it in years) -- so i might consider getting a nice Intel MacBook (with enough memory etc.) just to work with video, and keep the desktop for everything else. But before I take that plunge, I'd like to know if what the Mac guy said had any basis in fact -- are the AVCHD cameras still too new, would I be better off gong for the well-reviewed DV model? Or is my thinking about the virtues of solid-state technology closer to the mark?

thanks much,
Avilee

ps. to Alexander -- no offense taken, I've been called lots worse by my (teenage) students, as I'm sure you can imagine!

My AVCHD Canon is flat out impressive - I pop the card into a small USB adaptor and iMovie picks it right up. In FCE I do a transfer and log - no issues.

Work flow is fairly fast on my MacPro Quad.