What would you buy....

[Blake Cavett]

Originally Posted by Randy Panado

Highly compressed format is not an issue. Transcodes quite quickly to ProRes in FCP or you can use toast if you have a mac. Cineform is also available to handle conversion.

It shoots to SD cards, EXCELLENT in lowlight, light in weight, and has CCDs. I really think it's king of the camcorder market below EX1 price range. I didn't even mention XLR inputs, ability to switch sound imports on the fly, etc etc etc.

Keep in mind, the 5dmk2 uses h.264 compression as well as it's codec....and we all know how ugly those images look right? ;)

You're saying you get better image quality from a sony xr500 than an HMC150? Wow.

The .mts file that the HMC150 records is NOT what you HAVE to edit with. Transcoding is the name of the game unless you have a VERY beefy machine. I would spend some time checking out some HMC150 info before spreading misinformation that Canon HFS100 (that is what you meant by S100 right?) or the sony Xr500 kicks out better quality than the HMC150.

What Randy said...
Love my HMC-150. In fact, I love both of them, I have two.
Love the SD cards that run $40 bucks a pop, too. I have 18.
Can't beat the price either.
8k budget?
Go with the HMC-150 and put the rest of the cash in savings!

[Randy Panado]

Originally Posted by Kevin Duffey

No..I didn't say that you can get better quality directly..I believe, from what I've read, and various footage shots I've seen on the net, the image clarity directly from the HDMI outs on these cameras with minimal compression using CineForm will be BETTER clarity (I did say quality.I meant clarity) than that of any camera using H.264 compression FOR EDITING. That is, H.264 loses a lot of detail during compression by combining many frames at once to try to cut down on file size. It does look great on playback, for sure, but once you compress that uber image that the higher end cameras provide.. be it HDV or AVCHD, you're losing a lot more visual information than if you took the image directly from the HDMI or HD-SDI port of any camera. Because of that..for the price, I would bet.. not my life on it, but would bet that the quality of the Canon S10/S100 and Sony XR500/520 using the HDMI out and either a nanoFlash or preferabbly the BM Intensity board and CineForm, would provide a better overall clear/more detailed picture. The colors may not be as good, the low light may not look as good.. true..but the far less compressed video from those ports I would take any day over a H.264 compressed video, transcoding or not. I know you can take an H.264 video, and convert it to any format, including the CineForm and such. So you CAN edit it "easier". But once it's been compressed to H.264, you've lost a ton of detail that you wont lose if you take the HDMI outs of the $1K cameras and use a much better compression algorithm. To be fair, as I understand it now, the nanoFlash uses the same (or similar) Sony codec used on there $3K+ cameras using Long GOP Mpeg2 compression.. so its still being compressed quite a bit using the nanoFlash..but not nearly as much as AVCHD does.

My point was.. if I were to spend the money.. I'd rather opt.. for the 1K camera and the 3K nanoFlash.. or if you didn't need maximum mobility, a small Shuttle computer with Intensity in it, costing about 1K to build a computer like that, with CineForm codec, and get really clear quality. There must be a reason many people are using XDR Flash, soon nanoFlash, and many others use small Shuttle like computers with Intensity and the HDMI out ports. There's a market for it for a company to build PC cards and small devices to store HDMI output to.. because we certainly can't use those to record from DVD/bluray players due to HDCP.

Now.. don't misread that.. I know and absolutely agree the camera you mention and others are "better" in terms of optics, manual capabilities, low-light performance, etc. But, for the money, depending on your use.. I'd get more for the money if I could. If you're purely doing a green-screen shoot for example, then the small Shuttle with Intensity card and a Sony XR or Canon make great sense to me.. a studio/tripod mount with AC power near by, etc.. why not. If you need to do portable shoots like weddings or stock footage shoots or some on location stuff, then for the budget conscience, the nanoFlash with one of these I listed seem to be a very good alternative given the better clarity of the image. And from what I've seen the color isn't bad. Now if I had the money, 8K or so, I'd opt for the RED Scarlet. 2/3" sensor, 120fps 3K, 60fps 4K, similar quality to the CineForm codec right from the camera to its flash cards.. all in a portable package... I don't think there is a camera in that price range near as good. If it holds up to the hype. :)

If all you're concerned about is compression stats and resolution (which is what you're meaning by 'clarity' right?) and that is ALL you care about, that's fine. Actually, it's pretty clear after what you've stated in the past 3 posts you've made that that is your top priority. Nothing wrong with that as it's your own personal needs. To each his own.

I myself needed something solid state, great controls, audio flexibility, and excellent low light for those darn dark receptions. I've been more than happy with the HMC150 shooting weddings. I don't care to convince you about it's abilities as I love mine and won't be earning any commission so why bother, ;). I would ask you to check it out in more detail since you've admitted to not knowing much about it and being "confused". Keep in mind that compression is a necessary evil unless you're tethered or have a way to record data quickly and store it in bulk.

I appreciate you clarifying your statements earlier as a flat out blanket statement that the canon hfs100 and the sony xr500 have better image quality than an HMC150 is grossly inaccurate.

But a few statements are not jiving. For the budget conscious? I don't see how a $3,400 add on that doesn't even allow you to record anything on its own would be considered being budget conscious. Also, if you're more concerned about absolute resolution OVER color reproduction, manual controls and low light ability, I'd venture to say you're in the event videographer minority.

Anyhoo, it seems your beef isn't with the HMC150 but AVCHD/h.264 compression...or compression in general. Don't get it twisted, I would LOVE to have more resolution, but the tradeoffs using the HMC150 are totally worth it in my (and many others) book. I too am hoping for a day with an incredible camcorder that can give high resolution imagery (above HD) with an easily editable codec along with great controls.

Cheers.

[Chris Davis]

Originally Posted by Stephen J. Williams

I really like what the Canon XL H1a has to offer. Also the JVC GY-HD200U

I no longer shoot weddings, but when I did, I used a Canon XL2. Now that I'm shooting mainly corporate video, I use a JVC HD100U.

I love the JVC and everything I can do with it - BUT I would not want to use it for the type of shooting I did at weddings. I would find the lack of auto-focus a particular handicap. So if I were in your shoes, I'd go with the XL-H1a.

[Kevin Duffey]

Good stuff Randy. You actually put me in my place a bit there.. I am really concerned with trying to get the best possible quality for editing that would allow myself (for wedding shoots) and others who may buy clips I shoot (stock footage) the ability to take a better source, edit it and spit out what they want. My concern may no longer need to be one.. but in times past I've read that trying to edit mpeg2/mpeg4 is a no no if at all possible.. in that you're basically taking compressed video.. editing it, then compressing it again when you put it out on dvd or bluray. It would be far better I believe to have as little compression as possible in the footage to start with, then compress from there in the final result.

So question then, perhaps I am misguided on this. If I take mpeg-2 or mpeg-4 video, put it in an editor, do my thing, then render it back out as mpeg-2/4, is it not basically doing DOUBLE the compression on it.. meaning, do I lose even MORE quality when I run it thru that mpeg2/4 encorder again from my NLE? Or is it going to just write out a new single file with the same footage..no re-rendering of it?

I also read, and may be misguided, that due to the way mpeg-4 compresses by analyzing many frames, that editing it is a chore and often harder to work with color correction and such. I don't know yet if NLEs decode it to a frame by frame video on disk, that you then re-encode, or if it works within the mpeg-4 file itself, decoding on the fly and hence being sluggish on all but the beefy systems. I thought it was the latter.

There is of course the issue where in the NLE you mix footage. If you have mpeg-2 clips from one camera, CineForm shots that you did with HDMI or HD-SDI output into an Intensity card (thus super high quality low compression), and some mpeg-4 video shots.. and you combine these into one video.. I am guessing the resulting video will possibly look funny due to so many different quality shots being put into one stream, or the lowest common denominator wins.. in this case, mpeg-4 output would be the best way to go since there are mpeg-4 clips in it. I've seen some videos shot with multi-cam that are different cams and you clearly see the cut scenes.. one is either darker or brighter, less quality, etc. I'd of course like to avoid that if I was shooting weddings or events so naturally two cameras of the same quality/compression would probably be best.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Kevin -
I think you've got some misconceptions. You're going to either have compression or HUGE file sizes (which you'll see when transcoding, and would also result from HDMI capture). Whether HDV or AVCHD, it's compressed... unless you're capturing an uncompressed stream off HDMI (I think it was you who suggested that?),

Mixing cameras is mixing cameras, and different cameras "look" different, sometimes even two of the same model may look a bit different. That's where careful CC and grading in post will reduce the problem, but it's nice to start with "identical" cameras, though this isn't always practical or economical.

AVCHD seems to take more horsepower than HDV from my experience, but I do suspect that as the format matures, it will become easier. There seems to be a bit of a bottleneck in "decompressing" the stream on playback, and some computers really struggle.


Ultimately every camera has plusses and minuses, varying quality of sensors, lens, electronics and firmware. Not to mention various features of controls and interfaces.

I am a big fan of a decked out "small" camera (currently the XR500), but I don't kid myself that it has its limitations. I don't consider image quality to be one of them, the latest crop of "consumer" cameras can produce one heckuva high quality image, and I'm not sure a camera costing 3x as much produces a "3x better" image... I think the improvement is more likely to be in single digit percentages for all but the most picky, and for 90% of viewers, they'd never see much difference.

[Luke Oliver]

i just purchased a sony Z5 and its bloody fantastic for weddings. Used to worry about the rolling shutter with CMOS chips but now i just dont let it bother me. Also has nice DOF , 20x zoom, great LCD, controls are a bit fiddly but you get used it.


luke

[Randy Panado]

Originally Posted by Kevin Duffey

Good stuff Randy. You actually put me in my place a bit there.. I am really concerned with trying to get the best possible quality for editing that would allow myself (for wedding shoots) and others who may buy clips I shoot (stock footage) the ability to take a better source, edit it and spit out what they want. My concern may no longer need to be one.. but in times past I've read that trying to edit mpeg2/mpeg4 is a no no if at all possible.. in that you're basically taking compressed video.. editing it, then compressing it again when you put it out on dvd or bluray. It would be far better I believe to have as little compression as possible in the footage to start with, then compress from there in the final result.

So question then, perhaps I am misguided on this. If I take mpeg-2 or mpeg-4 video, put it in an editor, do my thing, then render it back out as mpeg-2/4, is it not basically doing DOUBLE the compression on it.. meaning, do I lose even MORE quality when I run it thru that mpeg2/4 encorder again from my NLE? Or is it going to just write out a new single file with the same footage..no re-rendering of it?

I also read, and may be misguided, that due to the way mpeg-4 compresses by analyzing many frames, that editing it is a chore and often harder to work with color correction and such. I don't know yet if NLEs decode it to a frame by frame video on disk, that you then re-encode, or if it works within the mpeg-4 file itself, decoding on the fly and hence being sluggish on all but the beefy systems. I thought it was the latter.

There is of course the issue where in the NLE you mix footage. If you have mpeg-2 clips from one camera, CineForm shots that you did with HDMI or HD-SDI output into an Intensity card (thus super high quality low compression), and some mpeg-4 video shots.. and you combine these into one video.. I am guessing the resulting video will possibly look funny due to so many different quality shots being put into one stream, or the lowest common denominator wins.. in this case, mpeg-4 output would be the best way to go since there are mpeg-4 clips in it. I've seen some videos shot with multi-cam that are different cams and you clearly see the cut scenes.. one is either darker or brighter, less quality, etc. I'd of course like to avoid that if I was shooting weddings or events so naturally two cameras of the same quality/compression would probably be best.

Hey Kevin, no worries man. I was in the same situation as you holding off from buying a cam to get one with the best resolution. I was thinking of saving up for a RED myself until I realized how unpractical for run and gun events, same day edits, and not to mention the wallet it was. I also saw the work of some of the top wedding cinematographers and was blown away from the quality they were getting FROM THE SAME CAMERA I had. That's when I realized it's not all about the best/expensive gear. I can empathize with your situation cause I was there myself.

Now as far as the codecs, I see where your stumbling block is. Short answer, depending on what you're doing with the footage, yes you're recompressing. Once in camera and the second after you spit it out to DVD. There may be a 3rd (well 2nd actually) time in between depending on what your method of DVD authoring is. BUT it's not a huge deal.

Start of long "answer"

AVCHD is already pulled into the camera compressed. But it's pretty damn efficient in the fact that it squeezes alot of quality into smaller file sizes due to its Mbps data rate. How efficient a codec is makes a big difference. I mean 97 minutes into 16gb is quite a bit of compression while still being 1080 resolution. Now while transcoding the footage out (because again, not many NLE's can edit AVCHD natively at the moment and those that can need a bit of horespower), depending on your method of transcoding, it can be close to lossless or not very noticeable. (Doesn't cineform say theirs is pretty much lossless?) I transcode to ProRes and it looks good as well as is easy to edit and stands up to grading much better. Mpeg4 (like the EX1/EX3) is transfered using sony's unpacker then brought into your NLE. I would examine in detail editing workflows of cameras like the HMC150 and EX1 before passing further judgment. You'll find them much more simple than you've imagined in practice. I wouldn't dream of editing in native h.264 with my canon 5dmk2 footage as it stutters like crazy in the NLE, I rough cut that footage, export out as ProRes, then recut and grade. Same as AVCHD. As far as mixing codecs/footage. You want to start a timeline with the highest in mind. For example, XDCAM timeline with HDV footage, I would use an XDCAM timeline and import HDV footage into that. It seems its easier for footage to "UpRes" into a timeline and require no rendering rather than it "downconverting" in the instance of mixing XDCAM EX1 footage and Canon HDV footage. Other specific examples I'm not so sure of. Gotta ask someone to try it out for you.

I don't know the FULL technicalities behind each codec in extensive detail so I'm sure someone more versed in the intricate workings will come in a clarify and/or correct some of my "explanation", hehe. Dave touched on the fact that AVCHD is very young, and as it matures I'm sure you'll see working with it to be much more simpler. I myself am hoping Snow Leopard (and FCS3) will be able to do some great things natively with it.

Since you're in weddings, take a look here : Stillmotion Photo + Cinema

Take a look at their blog and see their new stuff shot with 90% canon 5d mk2s.

Their cinema samples are shot with a majority of canon xh-a1's (HDV codec with a lower max Mbps than AVCHD in PH mode) with brevis adapters & sony ex1's. If that quality is good enough for you for weddings, I wouldn't worry so much about the resolving power about your cameras and focus more on the art side of things. I mean, you have guys shooting with FX1s and HV20s at the top of the wedding game due to their abilities to tell stories. The old adage is true, Content is king.

Cheers bro.

[Kevin Duffey]

Thanks Randy. I honestly thought.. why not get the XR500 if it shoots good enough low light, and a few have posted what I feared.. showing up to a professional event with a consumer looking video camera will almost for sure worry the paying customer.. or someone in the guess list who knows about cameras might question it.. although at that point it's too late. Most clients probably don't know much about quality and may not question the camera you bring. I did think.. if I can get a decent business loan, perhaps get the EX-1 and the XR500 or so as a second tripod mounted camera. I don't know if that would be balked at for wedding shoots. Mind you, I am not in it it..I am at this point trying to do my research before I buy and then try to get into it.

If I were to get a business loan, say 25K or so, I think I'd really aim to get a Scarlet and one of the canons or sony's in the 3K to 4K range, some decent wifi/sound gear, and a couple nice tripods. I really want the Scarlet for other reasons besides wedding shoot.

The whole run and gun thing.. if you have the body system with the nice tension arm that supports 20lbs of weight or so (maybe less) and a steadicam with the camera on it.. is it really hard to run and gun with a RED then? I am not sure of the weight yet, but I am guessing it will be a good 15 lbs or so with battery and memory cards.

[Aaron Mayberry]

For what it's worth, I love my Canon XH-A1. You can get the A1s for $3000+, and use the rest on accessories. Or a 2nd camera. Which is what I did :D

[Randy Panado]

Good enough in low light is subjective.

HMC150 is JUST ENOUGH of a good light shooter for me to be comfortable with it. It's pretty much the best in low light sensitivity for the price range. The next on the list is the EX1. That's why the HMC150 is such a big deal in the event industry right now.

25k business loan for a wedding?

11k for 1 HMC150 and 2 X 5Dmk2s with lenses

Steadicam pilot (10lbs ish limit) or Flyer LE (18-20lb limit)

3 tripods

audio gear

slider

laptop

projector screen

lights

Again, don't dump all the cash into a camera and forgot about all the other essentials. That would be a silly business decision.

And to say a steadicam makes a RED camera easier to run and gun, you must have not ever worn a steadicam or used it during a wedding. ;) I have a steadicam pilot and would not wear it the whole day. Now could I? Sure. But it's not the right tool for everything. You should figure out what tool you are using for what reason. Or else you'll have so much money in gear with a crap product or a product with over use of a single tool. Give someone like Jmag or StillMotion HV20s and they would dance circles around a new person with the best high tech gear in the world. It's NOT all about the gear.

Plus when it comes to corporate projects, StillMotion has shot a commercial for Canon Canada (actually, saying Canon Canada used some of StillMotion's actual wedding footage for a commercial would be more appropriate) . A shot from an HV20 (shot onto TAPE, not HDMI uncompressed out) made a cut national television commercial. Canon was blown away to find out it came from an HV20. Again, it's NOT all about the gear. That's the last I'll speak on gear choice in relation to quality of footage as an absolute measuring stick. Of course it doesn't need to be said that someone with incredible talent will be that much better with more quality cameras, that's a given.

Did you even take a look at SM's site?

Good luck in your (future) venture.

-R

[Kevin Duffey]

Is the 5DMK2 considered a video camera for a wedding/event shoot? I've seen some footage from it, it looks good.. but I wouldn't have thought putting one on a tripod to use as a video camera would be a good idea at a wedding shoot?

The RED in the body suit was more of a question. lol. I've not done ANY work yet. I have a JVC Everio if that says anything. It's mpeg2 SD at least.. looks better than my old Hi8, but still nothing to consider shooting any sort of video with. I am having fun shooting my kids in green screen and playing around with After Effects. I am more interested in AE for color correction and slow motion than anything else, but it's fun to try these different tutorials on the web out and see what happens. The kids get a kick out of it as well.

[Randy Panado]

Originally Posted by Kevin Duffey

Is the 5DMK2 considered a video camera for a wedding/event shoot? I've seen some footage from it, it looks good.. but I wouldn't have thought putting one on a tripod to use as a video camera would be a good idea at a wedding shoot?

The RED in the body suit was more of a question. lol. I've not done ANY work yet. I have a JVC Everio if that says anything. It's mpeg2 SD at least.. looks better than my old Hi8, but still nothing to consider shooting any sort of video with. I am having fun shooting my kids in green screen and playing around with After Effects. I am more interested in AE for color correction and slow motion than anything else, but it's fun to try these different tutorials on the web out and see what happens. The kids get a kick out of it as well.

Take a look at my last 2 posts and watch stillmotion's stuff. Take a look at the newer clips on the blog which are shot primarily with 5d's. Until then, you're short changing yourself frankly. SM's work along with shooting with Bruce Patterson really made me make the jump to purchase a 5d for wedding work. Shot a wedding with one just last night.

[Kevin Duffey]

Ok.. I'll take your word for it. Link the clip from last night's wedding (when you can)... love to see it.

Question tho.. at about $4K for the 5D, and 4K for HMC150 and such.. being that I have neither.. which would you choose and why? Also keep in mind I'd like to do some green screen stuff, stock footage video, and so forth. Green screen I can use in my studio with a computer and Intensity card, so I can get the HDMI or HD-SDI output directly into my computer.. hence if the 5D doesn't have something like that it would be a no go for me as my first camera.

Thanks.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Again I'd say pick up either the XR500/520 or an HF-S10/100 and start to get the hang of HD - it's a different workflow than that SD cam you've got - and either camera should give you more than satisfactory results image wise. There are others that are less $$ that will be almost as good, but my point is you need to get hands on.

As Randy has said, it's not the camera, it's the shooter/editor. Give 1000 monkeys EX1's, and see what you get... hand a handycam to the top shooters, and you'll get brilliance.

I'm shooting a gaggle of XR's right now, and I'm comfortable with what they can do, they may not look impressive, but I can mount them to a shoulder rig and toss some additional gear on, and they look "pro" enough for the market I've been dealing with. Plus they are discreet, which I prefer, and it's hard to argue with the image quality they produce - I've used Sonys consumer cams enough that I know how to work around their limitations, no complaints about the results, and I don't get self conscious about "camera size". In fact I feel like the "big cam" can make things awkward sometimes - for natural responses, small seems to work well, less intimidating.

I'm still looking/waiting for a replacement "big" camera. Even if the current economy justified it, there just isn't a camera that "hits" for me. HMC150 is nice, and I don't think you could go wrong with it. But I'd take 3 of the XR's "R" sensors in a tapeless FX7 or TRV900 sized unit with manual controls any day, if ever such a beast surfaces...

The 5D MkII is a different animal, but has a lot of artistic applications (keep in mind there's a 12 minute limit on clips though, making it problematic for "documentary"/keep the camera running style shooting). There's a good 5D forum here, and darn it's tempting, for what it does - as tools go, it's a nice one. I'd consider it if I didn't have to switch out all the DSLR gear I already have - I'm waiting to see if Sony comes out with an Alpha series DSLR-V, rumours are one is "close", and I've got plenty of sweet vintage Minolta glass... That I'd love to shoot video with! I see a DSLR-V as a special purpose tool, but one that a "video" guy probably can't afford to be without in the future. The "fusion/convergence" of photo and video will likely continue.

While I think an HDMI out might be potentially useful for "studio" use, I don't see it for live event shooting. I think you're overthinking the benefits - it's more about the CODEC in camera than a massive stream of bits.

[Kevin Duffey]

Dave,

I probably will end up getting the XR500 to get me going. I don't know that I'll have 4K+ anytime soon as I am buying my first home and no doubt will have lots to do there. I am a little fearful of using the XR500 for wedding shoots..but if I can get some "Free" gigs to get some practice in and the couple is willing to understand that the XR500 is a great camera but may not measure up to the bigger ones.. and that they are getting it for free (to help my portfolio out), then perhaps it will suffice. I figure if I can get some sort of lens hood (do they even exist for these small ones?), and a shotgun mic on top, it will look semi-pro already. That is far closer to my budget right now.

The point about HDMI out is solely for "in studio' with my green screen as I've read the less compression the better for keying smooth edges around people. So.. with a long HDMI to HD-SDI cord into the Intensity card, I should be able to shoot really good green screen. This is purely, at this point, for my own fun. While I am learning all this, I am also taking up After Effects, and having fun with the kids. Little animated clips with them doing fun things like flying, VFX using after effects, etc.. it's fun to do and the kids love watching it.

I am a little more concerned with using the XR500 for "stock" shots.. if I can rig up some sort of DC to AC converter and bring a Shuttle like computer with an Intensity card in it, and set up the camera/tripod near my car and use that to power the small Shuttle system to capture HDMI out..I think that could work..but naturally this wont be convenient for anything more than stock shots where I can park near it. I won't go back into the whole compression thing.. I am sure the XR500 will do plenty of good for most things and thus far seems to be the way to go for a new camera in the 1K range. I still wish there was something similar for maybe a few hundred more with a bit more manual controls, but doesn't seem like anything else other than the canon hs100 can do it.