FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Movie quality video cameras





captainsuperdude
They're coming out with all these new hd camcorders nowadays, some are pretty inexpensive, but I've tried one of them out, and it was still pretty far from being like professional film.

I know that in the film industry they have all sorts of audio and lighting equipment, but what would be like the bare-bottom video camera model for professional film-making? Anyone here know about that kind of thing?

By professional, I mean like, whatever looks not like it's filmed on a cheap camcorder.
captainsuperdude
like probably something like this right? http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/sony-hdr-fx1/4505-6500_7-31085889.html

this is what they call "semi-pro" lol http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/panasonic-ag-dvx100b/4505-6500_7-31568573.html?tag=similarProds;]
snowboardalliance
Prosumer camcorders are good for that sort of thing.

More importantly, is lighting. Research some more about lighting, I've seen some really cheap DIY tips on how to do cheap lighting.

I have a Canon HV40. It shoots native "24p", which is a step toward the "movie look". Still, it doesn't matter if you don't have good lighting. I have also used a "depth of field adapter", which basically just lets you use a 35mm camera lens on a cheap camcorder. Lenses are really important in how your video looks, and expensive cameras will actually have removable lenses. I wouldn't say that either of these are necessary, or a magic way to get professional video, but they can help if you are looking for "movie-like" video.
(Note that 24p is only relevant in regions using NTSC video, if you are in a region using PAL, ignore that)

In summary, get a decent consumer camera, or if you can afford, pro-sumer (they do have better customization options), but really look into learning lighting.

Good luck!
captainsuperdude
This is what I have to work with http://sonystyle.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=20153&catalogId=100803&langId=200&productId=8198552921666082655#specifications

The lack of microphone input is the worst, I need some kind of digital audio recording device (cellphones yeah, but quality is better) in order to get half-decent sound ! (Watch as I go digging for my yakbak from grade 2).

And expensive film editing computer software to make the video look professional..

It would be cheaper just to get that Canon HV40 I think.
lovescience
Without color correction, different camera produces different look of film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LYd1tEXa1Q&NR=1
rogue_skydragon
I'd put my money on Canon 5D MkII or the Canon 7D. These cameras have film-like sensors and shoot 1080p24
Cliffer
rogue_skydragon wrote:
I'd put my money on Canon 5D MkII or the Canon 7D. These cameras have film-like sensors and shoot 1080p24


yes me too,now i use 7D to shoot film,and it's good but short once a time.it's convinent.
Alaskacameradude
I own a video production company. I do a lot of stuff like TV commercials,
corporate videos, a few things for broadcast, weddings events and so on.
I needed to 'upgrade' to something that was both HD and looked more
'cinematic'. However I DESPISE the HDSLR's because they compromise the
video performance as they are first and foremost, a still camera. However,
they do have something going for them....they are cheap, and they have
a REALLY nice big sensor which gives you the shallow depth of field that
screams 'high budget'. I was very pleased to see Sony come out with it's
NEX FS-100 Super 35 motion picture cinema camera. I was able to snag one
of the early ones, as the events in Japan made them hard to get. You can
read my review of it here:
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/sony_nex_fs_100_strong.html

Besides making money with it, I have made a couple videos 'for fun' which
show off what it can do a little....I have another one almost finished, but
here are a couple to take a look at:

http://vimeo.com/30640529
http://vimeo.com/33798772
http://vimeo.com/29348554

It's the 'low budget' camera to have right now for a film look. Low budget in
my case, however it IS a professional camera so more than what a hobbyist will want
to spend.....about 6 grand US dollars....then there are the add ons and additional
lenses, but still, it's just amazing, kind of a 'mini Alexa'.
pazis
I have a Canon PowerShot SX30 IS camera. 720p HD video, 35X zoom, and wide range of focusing (from macro to something far a kilometer!). The videos look great and professional.
celebi269
rogue_skydragon wrote:
I'd put my money on Canon 5D MkII or the Canon 7D. These cameras have film-like sensors and shoot 1080p24


I also agree. DSLRs nowadays are packing a lot of good stuff in videos. Most of the short films I see in Vimeo are shot in either Canon or Nikon.

If you're going to try DSLR video, I suggest trying Canon EOS 550D. I enjoyed using this DSLR, and its pretty cheap. Very Happy
Alaskacameradude
While DSLR's are a cheap way to get HD video, there ARE big problems with them for
video. Moire and aliasing are two. Really simple explaination follows. These
are still cameras, most have a 16, 18, or even 24 megapixel camera. To get the
image down to the approximately 2 megapixel image of HD video, the camera has to
'throw away' 3 out of every 4 lines. So a BUNCH of detail is lost and you get all
kinds of ugly things on brick walls, and any fine diagonal lines. No good
audio controls, no XLR inputs, limited time clips (12 minute limit for any movie
clips on many of the Canon DSLR's) overheating issues, very limited video
resolution (DSLR's tend to 'fall apart' on wide shots), and a HORRIBLE codec
for video are some of the many pitfalls of DSLR's for video. Now if you
are just shooting for the web, some of these problems are lessened as you
won't notice them as much. Just be aware, these cameras have SEVERE limitations
as motion picture cameras. They are made first and formost to be still cameras
and they compromise their video functions so that they can make better stills.
They have a couple advantages, PRICE is the biggest one! They will look GREAT
when shooting a 'shallow depth of field' interview, because everything behind
the subject is blurred and out of focus. But when you need to get a good wide
shot, with sharp focus everywhere. A real 'motion picture camera' like the
Sony NEX FS100, the Panasonic AF100, the Sony F3, the Red Scarlet, or the
Canon C300 will do a MUCH MUCH MUCH better job than the DSLR's, and they
have the large sensor of the DSLR's so you can get the coveted 'shallow
depth of field look' of the DSLR's as well. Of course they cost more too,
there is no free lunch here! The Panasonic AF100 is the cheapest of the bunch
and it cost about $3800 but is MUCH better than any current DSLR for
shooting actual moving pictures.
kmontano
I've done a good deal of work with the Canon T2i and the quality is excellent.
If you add a custom firmware called magic lantern you can even get manual audio levels in video.
Related topics
types of cell phones?
TCL Products
Recommend me a good video digitalizing software
Watching movies on TV from a PC
What editing program do you have?
Mini-DV tapes, different type, different quality?
Can we capture ghost image/video?
Free Quality Video Conversion Software
In-Game Recording
Good quality snow filming
Video Compression
Convert any video, DVD, Youtube clips to iPod, PSP, Zune
Movie Effects??
Freeware for HD Video editing
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Filmmaking and Graphics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.