The gigantic "which camera should I buy" thread!

[Rob Lohman]

Now we are getting in a different territory: anamorphic DVD. The
only way to get a widescreen resolution the same as with DVD
is to get a true 16:9 capable camera or an 16:9 anamorphic
lens attachment. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a true
affordable 16:9 camera out yet. But there are a few attachments
mainly from Optex I believe.

Please be more detailed about what you want to ask in the
future. Comparing anamorphic DVD's to DV is a whole different
ballgame then just plain 4:3 DVD's / DV.

Sharpness also has to do with the camera and lenses. More so
than the increase a true anamorphic signal will bring I think. If
you have an XL1S for example you could attach the manual lens
for a higher resolution lens or a complete 35mm system to attach
35mm cine and photo lenses.

There are a lot of things you can do to increase (apparent)
resolution.

I still believe a letterboxed DVD from DV source can look very
good compared to an anamorphic hollywood movie if done right.
Will it look better with the 33% vertical resolution increase with
anamorphic? Sure! Will most people see the difference. Doubtfull.

But in 4:3 DV really produces 720x480 (or 720x576 for PAL) with
a good enough camera. It will just not do 850x480 (anamorphic)
at full resolution without an anamorphic attachment or true 16:9
CCD chips.

[Chris Hurd]

Plus, any of the newer megapixel CCD camcorders which produce native 16:9 (such as the Canon Optura Xi) will give you exceptionally sharp wide-screen video.

[Julian Luttrell]

Rob,

where does 850 x 480 come from? Not only won't DV do that, but neither will a DVD!

Regards,

Julian

[Ralf Strandell]

Rob Lohman wrote: "To the best of my knowledge there isn't a true affordable 16:9 camera out yet."

Well, the Sony PDX10 is a true 16:9 camera as it produces "full resolution" anamorphic 16:9 video and not letterboxed video. It has a 4:3 chip, but who cares about shape (square, rectangular, circle or triangle) if the chip is large enough to fit a full 16:9 area...

[Rob Lohman]

How much does this PDX10 cost?

840 x 480 is in my understanding the real resolution on a 16:9
chip. Or if I export an anamorphic image from the Vegas timeline
it exports it as 872 x 480 (a bit larger even).

You are correct in that the miniDV and DVD format do NOT support
this resolution. I was merely stating that a true anamorphic CCD
block will scan at that resolution before it is RESIZED to 720x480
(at a different pixel aspect ratio!). A non anamorphic camera will
start with a vertical resolution of something like 270 instead of
480 and upscale that to get an anamorphic pixel aspect ratio.

Keep in mind that with a true anamorphic lens/attachment or
CCD block your field of view will increase when you switch to
16:9 from 4:3. With a non anamorphic block it will not do that
(unless the camera does some trickery which some camera's do).

The final format will always be 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL)
for both DV and DVD. The difference is in the resolution the
camera worked with prior to laying it down on "tape".

[Andres Bant]

Both are about the same price, VX1000 is older of course, but seems like a higher quality camera. Also I am still learning, therefore I need a camera which is both complicated and not-complicated at the same time (one which I could learn a lot about cameras by using...Meaning if I upgrade in the future to a more complex camera, I won't totally be a fish out of water). Also keep in mind that I do documentary/short film video work. I am leaning towards the GL1. My budget is $12-1400, so if there are any other models I should look at, please let me know. Thank you. Andres Bant.

[Terry Harrison]

I am currently looking for cameras to be used in a professional environment and thought I would ask for suggestions.
These cameras are to be used for videotaping depositions and some handheld work, but very minimal.
The ones I am considering are the
DVC80
DSR PD170
VX2100

I would prefer XLR inputs and zebra option as well as more manual control. A great zoom is nice, but not a deciding factor one way or the other.
16-9 is nice but again not neccesary nor is the ability for a film-like presentation.
Price range is about $2K to $2700K.
If you think there are other cameras that would be worth looking at, please offer those thoughts as well.
Thanks in advance.

[Ken Tanaka]

Do a Search on "deposition", as there have been many conversations on the subject. The key attribute for such a camera selection has nothing to do with cinematic values. The key attribute seems to be the ability to burn accurate time of day onto the footage. That basically eliminates several good cameras.

[Darko Flajpan]

Well those are a little older cams, but if you can find one in good condition-go for it. I would prefer GL1 because of 2.5' LCD on the side which can be very helpful occasionaly. Both cams are ok for beggining, and i am very happy that you considered 3CCD cams.

[Shawn Mielke]

In the newer scheme of things, the Sony TRV950 takes fine mighty pictures, comes with a warranty, and will last longer than a much older and more used model.

[Shawn Mielke]

From the PD170 user's manual:

"Using the data code function

Your camcorder automatically records not only images on the tape but also the recording data (date/time or various settings when recorded).

Press DATA CODE on the camcorder or on the Remote Commander supplied with your camcorder in playback mode."


FWIW, the DSR PDX10 also does this (and has XLR audio, 16:9, but not as much manual control as the 170). Not as good in lower light, but at a good price ($1850).

[Bill Pryor]

The VX1000 is quite old now, and it's going to be difficult to find one in decent condition. The GL1 has been discontinued for a couple of years by now. If both cameras were still in production, I would go for the VX1000 over the GL1. But, given the age, I'd probably go for a GL1...but be sure to verify that it doesn't have a dead pixel and that the heads are in alignment. These two problems seemed to be talked about a lot when that camera was made.
Turn on the camera and hook a video cable out to a monitor. Stop the lens down to black and look at the monitor carefully and make sure you don't see a tiny white spot, or sometimes a colored spot. That indicates a dead pixel and the camera is pretty much worthless. To check head alignment, record something, then take the tape and play it back on another camera or deck to make sure it plays OK. If the camera's heads are screwy, the tape will play on the camera that recorded it, but usually not on any other camera or deck.

You might want to see if you can squeeze out a little more money and go for a TRV950 as the above poster suggested. And Panasonic is supposed to have a Something-400 coming out next month that is similar to the 950. Dont' know the cost.

[Roy Beazley]

Is there a program for hooking a dv cam to the computer? I have a optura 20.

Thanks

RB

[Jeff Donald]

Canon makes a product called DV Messenger that is Mac OS X compatible. there is also a product called EvoCam that I use and I'm very happy with the results.

[Martin French]

ichatAV will use any firewire camera as a webcam, even and PD170 or up!