Can anyone recommend a very good HD 3 chip CCD camcorder. I have a Sony HDR FX 1000 with 3 CMOS and it is a nice camera but when recording fast action sports I get some jitter. My Cannon GL2 which is DV only does a great job recording sports but it does no offer HD option. Thanks.

Larry Kropp
L&M Video

The JVC HM Series (100, 700, 750, 790) are CCD cameras. The 100 series is 1/4 inch while the 7XX series are all 1/3 inch chips. I've never used the 100 but have used the 700 as well as the older HD series and they are great cameras, but do require more of everything than the GL2. They need professional power be it V-lok or 3 stud plus charger, bigger bag, heavier duty tripod and head all of these add up to more money, lots of it but the image is superb.
YMMV

Hi Larry

Cameras are moving away from CCD unforunately...it's a pity cos I like the way CCD's handle footage. However, just bear in mind that technology has come a long way since the type of CMOS chips of the FX1000 ... I had to upgrade from Panasonic HMC70 to 80 and the chips changed to CMOS so naturally I was mortified after seeing "jello effects" and "rolling shutter" .. However technology has seemed to have jumped a huge step forward and the new chips have no jello or rolling shutter problems..the Panasonics supposedly had the occasional vertical image breakup but mine can do fast pans without any issues.
Image quality is way up there and a LOT sharper than my CCD's too.

I know it's a big step but consider going to an SDHC card camera...you save a fortune on tape and after the initial reluctance they really are the way to go!!!

BTW : Do you know Chip Thome ???? he's in GB too!!! we are good friends!!!

Chris

Hi Chris thanks for the reply. I reseached the HMC80 and I like it but it only has a 12x zoom and I need at least a 20x zoom for sports. Can you add a zoom lens? Also are you saying with the HMC80 I should be able to record fast action sports w/o jello effects? Will or how does the SDHC card communicate with my Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5? Can I capture the video from the camera while the card is in it or do I have to put it in the card reader in my computer? Will the card reader accept a SDHC card? Does the camera have a firewire output? If it does I s/be fine. Finally are you saying the HMC80 with 3 CMOS has a better picture or video then a 3 CCD chip camera?

I don't know Chip but G.B. is a small town so maybe I'll run into him. He is involved in video production?

Thanks.

Larry

Thanks Don I'm going to reseach these JVC Series cameras. Looks like the 790 is +$10,000 so I'm not for sure if I can get that past my wife unless I buy her that new car she wants.

Larry

If that's the kind of camera you're looking at you might look at the 700 or newer updated version the 750. The 700 with a 17 lens is a great combo, the 750 has many of the features the 790 has but is a fair amount less. Again I like the 17 lens on it. Dont't forget the Anton Bauer Battery's and a decent AB charger. I always liked to have 4 Dionic90's and a 4 position intellicharger so with that you'd probably be right around an additional $2900, plus a bag or case to carry it and a good solid head and set of legs which can set you back a few bucks. The 700/750 is a great camera and could carry you thru for quite a while. It records 25 or 35mbps AND you have the choice of MOV or MP4 plus with the SXS attachment you can go MXF or get a Nano and go wild and crazy.
Unless the 790 has specifically what you need maybe save a few bucks and go with the 700 or 750.
Just a though so you don't have to buy you wife the little 2 seater convertible. Maybe she'll go for the hardtop. ;-)
I used to shoot for NASCAR and most of our cameras (not the hard mount but the handheld and Robotics which is what I did) used 16 or 17s and I had no problem get a really well framed shot down the track from turn 3 down to turn 2 on a 1 mile track

Hi Larry

The Panny 3MOS chips are fine for sports BUT the lens is only 12 X and I personally wouldn't stick a tele lens on the front..that just defeats the purpose...Actually do a search here for "surfing" there was a guy also looking for a cam with a minium of 20x zoom.... the JVC will do it at a cost of course but you might find something that won't need the gift of a convertible to the wife!!

The other option is to look at a DSLR maybe....they have rather nice BIG lenses ...Chip actually has a bunch of GH2 and with adapters you can essentially use any lens as long as you are happy with manual focus...with a body under $1K it's a cheap option!! I actually don't like the DSLR fad at all but a lot of people rave about them!!

Chris

The Pansonic has 1/4" chips, which would look anemic compared to your FX1000, unless someone knows something I don't. I can't believe they make a shoulder mounted cam with such small chips, but there must be a market for it. I know some of the new small Panasonics are getting great review, however.

There is a new Sony coming out, but I can't remember the model number, it is supposed to be awesome, and expensive. If you have the bucks, it might be a solution for you.

I'm not entirely sure it's a CCD vs CMOS problem you're having. I've shot plenty of footage surfing footage at 20x zoom with my FX7 and also seen plenty of footage shot on the NX5 & Z5 without any hint of jitter. CMOS chips do not introduce jitter into shots at all, they simply make it a little more noticable because of the rolling shutter which then causes distortion. Instead of having shaky footage, you have shaky, distorted footage. If there is no shakiness to begin with, there will not be a difference between the CMOS and CCD image.

Also HD, being alot sharper than SD, tends to make tiny little things such as micro-jitters or slightly off focus far more noticable - perhaps there has always been some small wobble in your footage that you've never noticed?

Or perhaps it is to do with your tripod, if you are using one (you definitely should be at 20x zoom!). Maybe it was perfect for the GL2 but the FX1000 is a little too heavy for it.

Or it could be an IS problem - Do you have IS on or off? It should be off when you are using a tripod and doing a lot of panning, but at all other times leave it on.

I'd definitely explore other possibilities before you consider upgrading what is really a great camera for the kind of work you describe. If you do need to upgrade to a CCD camera though, check out the Panasonic HMC150. Probably not as much zoom as you'd like, but a solid performer.

I believe manufactures have gone to CMOS because its cheaper to produce and a little better under low light. Why would the vast majority of cameras over $10K use CCD if it was bad? My point is there are other more important factors that should drive your decision, such as focal length of the lens, weight, etc

Hi Jeff

The HMC 40 and HMC80 both have 1/4" 3MOS chips and actually produce a sharper image than the HMC150 with 1/3rd CCD's. The course the 150 is a lot better in low light!!

Not sure how they manage a sharper image with smaller chips but check the AVCCAM forum and you will see it's a fact!! The image on my HMC82's are razor sharp..in one instance the bride was actually amazed that she could see the fine hair on her arms during the register signing!!!

I'd love 1/2" or 2/3rd" CCD's in a shoulder mount cam but that pushes the price into unrealistic territory!!!

Just bear in mind that the FX is an "older" camera and uses slightly older technology so vertical smear and jello might still occur....I have seen FX footage on a motorcycle that was scary and very jello intensive..the newer Sony's would have overcome this issue by now.

Chris

Chris, you're the second person that has raved about these Panasonics that I've seen, they must be remarkable.

John, I think you are onto something.

Larry, can you describe jitter? I've shot soccer with the FX1000 and had no issues. Jitter implies camera movement or shaking.

I'm wondering if you are actually seeing distortion as a result of the conversion process from HD to SD. This is a common problem. If you are shooting in HD and downconverting, could be your problem.

Another potential issue, is your shutter speed set to 100th of a second? For sports, you definitely want a faster shutter speed. If not, you should try that. If you are running in full auto in low light your shutter speed could be dropping and causing issues. Below 60th of a second and you're asking for trouble.

The FX1000 is admittedly older, but still a remarkable camera. If you cap the gain at 12dB, set your shutter speed to no less than 60, but preferably at 100, and downconvert your footage properly you should see some great results.

Another thing, if your final product is SD, are you shooting in SD widescreen? If not you should be. With the FX1000 there is no advantage to downconverting the HD footage to SD, it only adds work and potential issues in the downconversion and resizing process.

The FX1000 has a wide starting point, and has a fantastic zoom. There is no reason it shouldn't be a solod performer for what you are doing. If you need better low light, then you will have to upgrade to something newer with larger chips, period.

The HMC 150 would be a lateral move, and while some disagree, I've owned it also and found it slightly poorer thant the FX1000 in low light. It's gain is cleaner than the FX1000, but with the FX1000 you need less of it.

Larry, witth the GH2, my current camera, I shot my first video and posted it, and saw what I thought was moire. I was coached through the process of proper resizing and conversion and my problems vanished.

With the FX1000 I complained of grain, then I was told to limit my gain in the menu to 12dB and my grain disappeared. My footage looked like it was being shot with a new camera, the difference was remarkable.

Hey Jeff

IMO the image is super sharp...however the claim that the 80 and 40 is technically sharper than the 150 was not made by me at all..I just read some specs on the AVCCAM forum where that was stated.

You have probably hit the nail on the head with shutter speed...my cams seem to default to 50 (we are PAL) and a reasonably fast zoom shows no image slurring BUT manually switch to 1/25th and the image breaks up badly...it's just too slow for moving objects and I think even CCD's would suffer the same fate!!

Most cams also have "scene modes" and they usually have a "sports" setting which forces the shutter to at least 1/100th ...maybe try that first!!

Just for interest, how does the GH handle fast sports scenes as long as the shutter speed is high enough???

Chris

Chris, this video of a squirrel Chuck the Squirrel looks for a handout. on Vimeo is slowed down around 80%, if that tells you anything. The GH2 or GH1 would give remarkalble results using the right lens, the lens choice is always key with the GH2/GH1.

The problem would be focusing, I would find it close to impossible to keep things in focus.

If I had to guess, you could try using a 14-140mm, but in marginal lighting conditions the F/3.5-5 is too slow.

It could be done using a 20mm for a wide shot, than using the 14-140mm on the primary camera. But of course you really need a "real" video camera for sport with auto focus for consistent results.

If you had an EX1 or FX1000, HMC150, etc the GH2 with a fast prime would be really nice for cutaways and closeups of the action from the sidelines. You can slow it down with no noticeable loss in quality. The sensor is 8/10 of an inch.

Thanks Jeff

So the autofocus on the GH1 wouldn't handle stuff like say, motorsports or a field sport where you have to follow a player running ???? I think the DSLR CMOS sensors seem to suffer the most with objects moving fast left to right (or viceversa) but if you are following a player with the camera keeping him/her in frame the camera is really moving, rather than the subject.

It would be interesting how a GH1 or 2 would handle this kind of camera movement

BTW: Chuck is really cute!!!

Chris

No, most of us use manual focus most of the time with these cameras, the auto focus is handy now and then, but for sports I absolutley cannot imagine using it. Fast moving subjects, no way.

Man all you guys have been great. Only way you could be better is if you were all Packer fans! :)

Seriously, Jeff you gave me some great ideas on using 12db gain maxium and a faster shutter speed when shooting sports. I've been searching on how to video tape sports and one article said to use a shutter speed of between 2000 - 4000fps since this will also give you great slow motion. During the day this will not be an issue but at night forget it. I've recently done a wedding, no fast movement of course, with the FX 1000 and the picture was great! I'm going to play a bit more with different settings on the camera at the next soccer game and I'll let you guys know what I find out. I'll also focus on using a solid tripod.

Here is another thing I noticed about picture jitter last evening while I was playing. This in fact my be the issue. I recorded one game in HD 1080i and when I played it back from the timeline in CS5 Premiere Pro the picture on my Toshiba T.V. I use as a monitor had a lot of waves and sort of an unstable picture. However, when I played it from the source monitor the picture looked absolutely perfect. I couldn't figure it out since the computer monitor is prgressive scan and I'm not for sure what the T.V. is. It's a newer 19" so it may be progreesive scan also. I was guessing the picture would look better on the T.V. connected via an HDMI connector but no way. Finally I stumbled on to field options in Premiere and I checked "always deinterlace". Problem gone! I'm not for sure why I need to deinterlace an interlaced recording but I guess I really don't care. May be it is the TV/monitor I'm using. One other thing. When I burn it to DVD I can leave the time line as interlaced and when the DVD is played back on the T.V. all looks fine. Sorry I took so long to explain but this was sort of amazing to me. I'm not for sure any thing is wrong with the Sony FX 1000. However, I'm still very interested in how the game will look with the faster shutter speed. More to follow.

Larry

No, most of us use manual focus most of the time with these cameras, the auto focus is handy now and then, but for sports I absolutley cannot imagine using it. Fast moving subjects, no way.

Great advice Jeff. During the next game no auto focus or image stabization. Can't wait.

Thanks.

Larry

Larry, you DO want to use auto focus on the FX1000, I would think. I was referring to poor auto focus on the GH2, as someone asked about using it for sports.

If you are using a tripod, and if your camera is steady, you should turn off Image Stabilization for best quality, for sure. If your camera is being vibrated or shaken, leave it on.

Jeff I did a little experimenting and it looks to me leaving off the auto focus in addition to turning off the IS while on a tripod provides a bit more stable picture. Looks to me the HDR 1000 auto focus is a bit slow to respond when I pan to fast so leaving it off actually seems to give me a more stable picture. I zoom in as far as I can on a player on the field manually focus and then get into a wide angle position. Seems to work. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Larry

Hi Larry

I always have OIS (mine's optical) off...it seems to be more problems that it's worth!! It's far better to run the footage thru something like Mercalli if you really have to, but I certainly wouldn't worry about minor wobbles..remember the viewer is watching the player not the background!!!

I would have sided with Jeff on the autofocus but then again on a bright day and with the players a fairly long way out you are in focus most of the time anyway!! At 1/100th shutter and probably F16 you will be in focus from really 20' out until infinity!!! The little GoPro Hero's are fixed focus and have no issues.

Are you sure you don't have autofocus settings on the FX???? By default my Pannys update lightning fast (I can have the AF distance on the EVF and it updates probably 5 or 10 times a second to keep stuff in focus)

Maybe post a small clip so we can see it????

Chris

Larry, I was only referring to the auto focus on the FX1000, I always found it "decent", but it can be pretty slow or even terrible in low light.

You do what you feel works. I do not shoot sports. I've shot one soccer game, that is all, so you will figure out what is best.

What you described sounds like a good solution, to adjust after zooming in...it is that kind of thinking that will give you your ultimate shooting method. And of course, no one method serves every situation, so therein lies the rub!

I really think you are on track to get this down to a system and settings that will work for you.

Yeah leave the IS OFF when on the tripod especially at the long end of the lens. It can have adverse affects on the image quality when on legs.
Auto focus works on a contrast and while it can in many if not most cases be quite adequet (SP) for most sports especially fast moving sports you'r better off focusing like you described. That's how a professional lens is focused. Zip in close, focus, zip out to frame. As long as the back focus is set right you're OK.
Hell even when I did NASCAR remote cameras I focused down the track to a certain point I had picked out geberally about 1/2 down the straight away using the same method and allowed my DoF to cover past the point of focus and short of it. I was following cars from the turn away from me thru the straight away into and thru the turn I was covering to the next turn. Aways in focus (thank goodness) and yeah we were shooting HD.
anyway that's the accepted way to do it.

Don, suggest to me how you would manually focus on a bride, or bridaly party members, as they come down the aisle, will you?

What I did last week was ran four cameras, then focused the two rear facing ones on different spots in the aisle, and I did the same for the front facing cameras. I then followed with one zoom lens, focusing ahead of the bride by few feet and then attempted to follow focus. When I lost it, I just repeated the pocess of focusing in front of her, and then just as she hit the spot at which she was in focus, I attempted again to follow focus. Does that sound as good as anything?

I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing with manual focus, that is for sure, but I'm giving it hell trying to learn.

Your Nascar experience sounds very relevant to what I do at a wedding.

consider going to an SDHC card camera...you save a fortune on tape

Made me smile. How does spending £1 per gig (SDHC card) save you a fortune over spending £1 for 13 gigs (MiniDV tape)?

Another thing, if your final product is SD, are you shooting in SD widescreen? If not you should be. With the FX1000 there is no advantage to downconverting the HD footage to SD, it only adds work and potential issues in the downconversion and resizing process.

Thing is though Jeff that any HD or HDV camera ia *always* shooting hi-def. The chips are 1920 (or 1440) x 1080 whichever way you look at it, so if you switch the camera to its SD mode all you're doing is using the cheap 'n' cheerful on-board down-converter to save the image in SD onto tape or flash.

Generally it's better to record what the chips have seen, then in post use far more sophisticated Lanczos technology to do the down-conversion. If you record to HDV (say) and output SD from the camcorder you're again using the cheap on-board downconverter, a just-good-enough pcb that costs the manufacturer as little as possible. Just look at the Z1's SD aliasing as proof of that.

tom.

Tom, regarding shooting HD vs SD it's been beaten to death, so I'll leave that alone. The main idea is the poster was having issues that sounded possilby conversion related, and the simplest way to avoid those issues is to not have to convert. The forums are rife with people having issues with the conversion process. As it turned out it wasn't an issue for him anyway, so it's a moot point.

On cards vs tape, as many others have said, I miss having the tapes as back up.

But Chris is correct on savings. I ran four cameras for over four hours each last Saturday, which would cost about $35us for 16 tapes (and I would have had to change tapes every hour on each camera). One 32GB card costs about $60 dollars maybe more. Cards, as we know, are useable at least dozens of times. True I did spend $200 on one fast card, but the rest were $60 or so. (edit: my cards actually cost well over $60 each, I was mistaken, but I digress)

Handling 16 tapes, finding a place to store them in my bag, and keeping them organized not to mention the download time,, wow. Furthermore one card per camera for an entire day? Nice.

I own only 6 cards, and I can reuse them for ages. Tapes not so much, as we all know.

Tapes are reliable, and I love having the security of the backup. Cards, IMO are less reliable. I trust tapes, and rarely had dropouts.

So my preference is clearly for tapes, but strictly speaking, cost wise there is no comparison. I do not have boxes upon boxes stacked in cupboards filled with tapes that I will never use again as I used to.

I download the footage when I come home, in less than an hour Ive got 16 hours worth of footage safely tucked away and I can go to bed, after I back it up to a second drive.

Hi Tom

Had to answer that question..that is assuming that you used to use tapes just once it's way cheaper for me!!

I recycle my cards every 6 months so based on the fact that using just ONE card of 8GB I can squeeze pretty close to 60 minutes of footage using a VBR at 24mbps in AVCHD so we can compare that to a 63 minute tape now. I'm basing this on just one of my cameras as well.

Over 6 months I will shoot around 20 weddings and I also shoot around 100 Realty jobs in 6 months too.

120 x Pro Tapes (bought wholesale here) costs me $720.00 (I used to buy packs of 10 for $60.00)
1 x 8GB card costs me under $20!!! Saving ???? $700.00

If of course you are prepared to use your tapes 120 times over then there is no saving on the actual media!!

Of course in real life I use 8 x 16GB cards and rotate their use over 6 months so each card is only written to around 15 times which is nothing for a card but it is good security....even buying 8 x 16gb cards at $32.00 each your outlay is STILL only $256.00 a saving of $464.00 over single use tape.

I'm also not even factoring in the 120 hours that it would take to physically capture your tapes (time is money!!!) against the average of around 3 minutes it takes to transfer about 8GB to a normal drive.

Might not be for those who re-use tape over and over, but for me I save a fortune!!!

Chris

Jeff,
What I do for the processional is to focus about 1/2 way or so down the aisle, (I pick a person sitting in the pew there) and in 99.9% of the cases the DoF will carry the focus. I let the bridal party walk thru the shot (I don't follow them all the way to the altarand I usually am set up front and use a shot that they get almost to the altar so I can pick up the next people walking down, of course every setting is different-hope that all makes sense) but I do follow the bride to the handoff. As she hits the spot of focus I slowly zoom out and adjust focus if needed but in most cases it's not. Please keep in mind I'm still shooting with a PD170 without any attachments on the lens (no WA or Telephoto) so with the 1/3 inch chips and decent DoF (even at f/2.4) it keeps the focus. If I see if going out I use a LANC control with focus capability and slowly adjust.
Again for the most part, unless it's a really dark setting or I'm shooting backlit because of windows or open doors I'm pretty well fixed on focus. Once she gets handed off to the groom and they make they're way to the altar as they're doing that, I swing around and get behind them (making sure I don't step on the dress and my B cam which is generally up front catches them, if not then I have a C cam either in the balconey OR way up high in my tripod at the back to act like a Balconey shot.
Once you learn manual focus I think you'll find that you'll wonder how you ever did anything on auto focus, not that it's bad, there are many times auto focus is the way to go but I think most processionals call for manual since the auto can and does hunt and that can be a problem.
Also keep in mind that the DoF is a value based on the F/stop as well as the focal length of the lens and where in that range of focal length the lens is focused. IOW, if the focus point is 10 feet away the DoF isn't going to be as deep as if the lens is focused 20 feet away. Of course there is a point of diminishing returns depending on the lens and focus point. The chips (sensors) used today in cameras regardless of the kind of camera it is (mostly 1/3 inch) can be a life saver when it comes to focus/DoF OR it can kill you. No in between epecially with any form of HD.
It sounds though like you're on the right track but I would play around with it (not on a job of course) and see how deep the DoF goes at various settings of the lens, F/stop and focus point.
HTHs

Very nice tutorial, thanks Don. The DOF is quite severe with my lenses, and as they pass through the point of focus, it doesn't last long, unfortunately.

I say severe, because it is. A shallow depth of focus is nice in many situations, but for the processionial I would prefer it to be as deeper than is possible with my lenses, as when I stop down enough to make an impact, I lose light, of course. I will make a dry run tonight at the rhearsal, and see how far I can stop down and get good results with a higher ISO.

Thanks again for sharing your experieince, I will be better off for it.

If of course you are prepared to use your tapes 120 times over then there is no saving on the actual media!!

Hi Chris and Jeff, thanks for your maths. Yes, I used tapes for very many years and was still re-using the chipped excellence tapes I bought in the late 90s to record HDV in the late noughties. But I shot fine HDV on Sony's cheapest Premium tape and never having suffered dropout reused them again and again. My 'never go on a shoot with anything you haven't thoroughly tested' is well known here.

Then I bought the NX5 and along with it I bought six 16gb class 10 cards. We're not talking storage, download time, reliability, run time. I'll happily say (regardless of the truth) that I can effectively keep re-recording on these cards for ever. 6 cards is about 8½ hours record time, or less than 9 tapes, yet cost a whopping 12x as much. That price would buy me a stack of 110 tapes.

So I can't quite get my head around your 're-rec 120 times'. Mind you, I don't have to. I just love shooting file-based and tape is just a bygone era now.

tom.