Best HDCam $5k or less?

[justjoined]

so i want to make movies. ive looked at the Sony SR11/12 but can afford to go higher price wise, but its seems between 1k and 5k there isn't anything good or I should say nothing I was able to find. Though Im sure there is.

[GobiasIndustries]

Personally, I use a Canon XH A1. A quick check on Amazon.com says its currently $US3,269, though I'm sure if you look around you can get it for slightly cheaper.

Its a HDV camera and will give you alot more control over your image as opposed to the lower priced cameras such as the Canon HV30, Sony SR11 etc.

There's also the Sony HVR and HDR series of cameras (never used them, but I'm sure they're great too)

If you're looking to spend big bucks, there is the Panasonic AG-HVX200 ($US5,875). This one records to both HDV and P2 cards. These P2 cards are great because they eliminate the digitising process that comes with any form of magnetic tape recording (assuming you want to edit of course), though I hear the individual cards are quite expensive. When my University Media department decided to go HD a couple of years ago, they went with these cameras.

Canon also make the HG-10 ($US723 on Amazon), which records straight onto a harddrive, but has no HDV capabilities. And of course, doesn't have the kind of image control that the higher range of cameras possess.

Unfortunately, I can't quite tell from your post what your goal is in terms of using a camera (i.e. are you looking to make family home videos, or make short films, or documentaries??)

So if you can offer more information, then perhaps I, as well as others, can provide more specific details suited to your needs.

[The Bandit]

The HVX-200 is $5200, minus a $400 mail-in rebate (so $4800 net), and includes a 16GB P2 card -- this is at B&H.

You can't beat that price, or that camera, IMO.

[MrE]

Another vote for the HVX-200 since it perfectly fits into your budget and is the same camera I have been really wanting to purchase

[OpticDisc]

I've been using the HVX200, and recently the XH A1.. both great cameras.

[justjoined]

thx. yeah the hvx200 looks pretty good. i also meant to say that i want a "film look". i mean when i look at a low budet movie made by joe random its easy to tell it apart from hollywood movies. a certain look and feel thats missing. why is this? ive seen short "movies" shot with hvx200, sony ex1, and XH A1 on vimeo and while they look good there is no question they are not hollywood movies. the look just isn't right. hope im making sense.


here is an example:

http://www.vimeo.com/840001


to me this looks like a commercial, not a movie/film. and by "look" i mean the physical appearance and motion.

[GobiasIndustries]

I really can't say how one gets a 'film look' on video, cause I simply don't know. I'm sure other's on this site will give you great tips and what not. (Check out www[dot]videocopilot[dot]net for fantastic tutorials on using After Effects to achieve all sorts of great looks and SFX)

But what I will say is that perhaps one of the reasons all video-shorts don't have a 'film-feel' is perhaps due to everything outside of the camera not being as 'professional'. Things such as high-quality actors, costume design, locations, sets etc. There are many other thousand miniscule details that go into making a film feel like a film.

For instance, just glancing at that video link that you posted (unfortunately I dont have sound available at the moment) but just looking at that video, it felt odd to see a high-speed car chase (with very flashy cars) taking place in what seemed, at times, like suburbia. Maybe there was a context to this, but just judging it visually, it looked a bit, odd. Not to attack the film (the fimmakers did a great job and I think it looks great) but perhaps this is one of the subtle elements that give it a non-Hollywood feel.

However, there are numerous feature films shot on HD that do have a 'professional' feel about them, even mini-DV such as 28 Days Later... This particular film feels (to me at least) like a high qualty professional film, and I think it's all down to the aforementioned elements which are difficult to achieve for low budget film production (I mean, they shut down parts of London to film it!)

So what am I blabbering on about? I don't really know, but I just think that a 'professional' looking film is not dependant on having just a 'professional' camera. Alot of work has to go into composing great images for that camera to capture.

(Feel free to ignore this post...I'm sure it contains absolutely no answers to your question )

[justjoined]

lol thx. actually I think I understand.

a bit off topic but I was wondering if there are ways to learn about film making other than going to film school? and will I be taken seriously if i do not have a film school on my resume?

[GobiasIndustries]

Hey Justjoined....I would love to reply to your post right now, but Im desperately packing for a 5 day trip. However, when I get back, I'll post my opinion. Just letting ya know you're not being ignored

[Philnerd]

Originally Posted by justjoined

thx. yeah the hvx200 looks pretty good. i also meant to say that i want a "film look". i mean when i look at a low budet movie made by joe random its easy to tell it apart from hollywood movies. a certain look and feel thats missing. why is this? ive seen short "movies" shot with hvx200, sony ex1, and XH A1 on vimeo and while they look good there is no question they are not hollywood movies. the look just isn't right. hope im making sense.


here is an example:

http://www.vimeo.com/840001


to me this looks like a commercial, not a movie/film. and by "look" i mean the physical appearance and motion.

First of all YOU will determine how "film like" your movie looks, NOT your camera. Never forget that. Moving on...

Mediocre films - including unfortunately most amateur video based movies - almost universally suffer from poor lighting/cinematography. Fantastic lighting and cinematography will go a LOOOOOONG way to making your production look like its a pro project. Just watch a movie that you think looks great and pay attention to the lighting techniques. At the very least learn to do solid 3 point lighting. It doesn't matter if you have a 35MM Arri or an HVX; if you shoot your film in your living room with a 100 watt ceiling light your final product will look like a soap opera. Look at the "making of" specials and just look at how many lights are on set. I just can't over emphasize this.

Bad audio is a dead giveaway on many low budget indies. You need a boom operator with an appropriate mic and hopefully a pretty high quality recording device. In a pinch wiring into your camcorder will do, though you'll only see dedicated recording devices used in big productions. If you mount a shotgun mic on your cam and that's your "audio solution", it'll never sound right.

Bad acting is, of course, a quick way to ruin a movie. This is tough, and as a low budget director/casting person you have to bring talented actors on board. For no-budget movie making, it can be tough to find good actors. If you can't find a good actor, don't hesitate to bring in people with "personality". There are plenty of HUGE Hollywood actors that don't actually "act" very well at all; their popularity is based on their ability to draw people in with their charm and personality.

And of course bad directing, shot composition and editing all factor in. There's a fine line between awesome hand held action movies like Bourne Ultimatum and uncle Bob's bumpy home videos. Awkward camera angles and poor handheld shots often plague low budget movies. A good tripod, a dolly and some sort of hand held stabilizer (even a Monopod in a pinch) can - when properly used - make your shots look like a million bucks.

Those are the major shortcomings I tend to spot immediately in most indie productions. And not a single one has anything - anything - to do with the camera. If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000, you've likely already seen some 35mm features that were absolute crap for all the above reasons.



Now for camera choice, I personally own the XH-A1 and highly recommend it. I would normally recommend the HVX for a film maker, but if you blow your entire budget on the HVX and a second P2 card, guess what? No money for lighting, audio, dollies, etc.. (unless you own kits already) and your movie will look and sound bad. So in your 5K budget range I'd say get an XH-A1 and sink another 2K into some lights, a solid microphone and a decent tripod. 2K doesn't go far, you'd probaby be buying used. For a budget mic look at the AKG CK 93, its pretty affordable yet good enough to be used sometimes on Hollywood features.

As an alternative camera choice you might consider a Canon HV20 or HV30. At $800-900 it shoots a phenominal 24P video (with proper lighting). It of course doesn't have the extensive manual controls of an XH-A1 but you'd have a LOT more money for the other equipment you need. You *might* even be able to squeeze a 35mm adapter in there and you'll Really be cooking!


For lots of great research, check out www.dvxuser.com and www.dvinfo.com/conf and just spend a couple of days absorbing info there. Also check out the upcoming Blu-Ray release for "The Signal". It was shot with a Canon HDV cam using 35mm lenses and picked up by Magnolia at Sundance. Should give you an idea of what can be done with an affordable camcorder and what level of quality you'll want to achieve to have a saleable product.

[justjoined]

thx a ton. that explains some of it for me. now i was also wondering given that amateurs have access to thousands of Hollywood movies, why are these common mistakes continualy made? Budget? Not caring enough? Do some people purposely set out to make B movies/mediocre films, to have bad lighting, bad sound. etc..? i mean im very new at this, in fact, I don't have any experience in production or film or anything related. Im a finance major, work in a bank and my experience with movies goes only as deep as watching them in theaters or on video. but i constantly when watching B movies pick out places where they could have improved the shot or dialog. and i ask myself why would they release this when it has this many flaws? don't they know they are releasing a mediocre movie?


thanks for the "The Signal" heads up. which model canon was it do you know? also, sounds a lot like what happened to people in Appleseed Ex Machina, you know with a signal entering those headsets they all wore turning them homicidal.

and how do you know so much about this? are you in the business? school?

[Philnerd]

Originally Posted by justjoined

now i was also wondering given that amateurs have access to thousands of Hollywood movies, why are these common mistakes continualy made? Budget? Not caring enough? Do some people purposely set out to make B movies/mediocre films, to have bad lighting, bad sound. etc..?

Not trying to sound uppity, but there are just hordes of people that aren't particularly talented but hold the belief that they are. And - like most things in life - creating a movie takes a healthy combination of money, friends, business savvy, contacts, etc. Conspicuously absent from that list is talent. Talent is what will make it a *good* movie, but talent alone won't drive the entire process. And I must say, even to medicore independent filmmakers that mange to get something into a film festival or on TV, hats off for at least getting the product out. I believe it was Woody Allen that said "80% of success is showing up." And he's quite right; I can rag on crappy movies all day long, but if I never get my own film submitted to a festival I'm still a step behind the worst filmmaker that at least sent off a DVD in a submission envelope.

Originally Posted by justjoined

thanks for the "The Signal" heads up. which model canon was it do you know?

The camera owner/operator for the film posts regularly at www.dvinfo.com/conf
Do a search on that site for The Signal Sundance. Some good reading.
I personally have 0 interest in this type of film, but I'm definitely going to pick up the Blu-Ray. This is a must own for any aspiring independent filmmaker, as it should give a great example of what level of quality can catapult a film into being successful. And make no mistake, for the filmmakers this was a smashing success. This was shot on HDV tape on an undisclosed - but likely extremely low - budget, submitted to Sundance, accepted by the festival and then picked up there by Magnolia studios for over 2 Million dollars. Most independent filmmakers would give up a vital organ for that sort of deal.

Originally Posted by justjoined

and how do you know so much about this? are you in the business? school?

I've just been a computer, video and movie nerd for a long time. I harken back to the dark days of news groups, buggy analog capture cards and Hi8 camcorders

[jabba359]

I second the "bad lighting and audio" comment, in regards to videos having a non-film look. But assuming that you have good lighting and audio, you are still not going to look "Hollywood" at all. The reason for this has to do with a couple of limitations of the video cameras, of which there are two main things holding them back.

1) They all shoot compressed video, which results in a smaller color space and therefore the colors usually aren't as vibrant and lifelike. The HVX200 holds an advantage here as the bit-rate is much higher when shot to the P2 cards then to tape. With a higher bit-rate, there is less compression of the color space and things don't look quite so flat and bland.

2) Most movies are shot on 35mm film with lenses to match, whereas the video sensors have a much smaller surface area. This in turn, affects your depth-of-field. In video, there is a wide range of distances in focus at any given time, whereas film has a very narrow plane of focus. There are adaptors (I've used the Red Rock Micro 35mm adaptor for instance) that allow you to use lenses that give you a 35mm format depth of field, resulting in a much more cinematic look.

These are only two of many factors, but I think they are the most likely ones that cause the cinematography to look amateurish, all things considered. Hope this helps.

[SilentNight]

I have the Canon XH-A1 and a smaller Sony HDR-HC7. I do promotional work for the company I work for with filming and editing and authoring to DVD. I have also made several half hour movies and I know what you mean about not getting that "film" look. There are things you can do to improve on it but unless you have a large budget OR a 16 MM or 35 MM camera you simply are not going to get that look that even 28 Days Later had.

Since that movie was shot with the Canon XL1 it of course was shot on mini-dv but then was blown up to 35 MM as well as all sorts of lenses that Danny Boyl used. It's an impressive feet for it to look more film like but that's what you get for 4 million big ones. Another example is Greg McLeans Wolf Creek, which I loved. Shot for $1,000,000 using a Sony HD camera that was shot on taope, not film. He did wonders with the budget.

[justjoined]

how about crank. i know it was shot entirely with HD digital cameras. it looks very film like to me.