On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 00:59:03 -0400, John Garrison
>I'm somebody who has always been interested in film and now finally have
>the money to do something with that. I'm looking to start making films
>and am having a dog of a time deciding on what camera(s) to buy. My
>first initial instinct was to go with two GL1s.
See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
before doing this - I think the GL-1 is the worst of
the common 3-chip Mini-DV camcorders... See also, for
reference (click on "key" to see what cameras were
used for the examples - the GL-1 appears often in
the "negative" examples...):
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
>I would really prefer to
>have two cameras because it makes life that much easier for some of the
>stuff I'd like to do.
Having two matched cameras often is useful...
>Right now I have an 820 handycam, which is of
>course a crappy 1 1/4" ccd camera. When I cut video from it to DVD the
>voice and video came pretty horribly out of sync. When reading
>literature on the DV500 from JVC I noticed that they say that is a
>problem with DV that they fix, apparently DCVPro and DVCam also fix the
>problem. Is the problem going to be as horrible with a Gl1 as it is with
>a cheap handycam?
This is NOT a Mini-DV problem, but one of the software
used to make the DVD. BTW, one-chip 1/4" camcorders
are getting better, and a few used under some shooting
conditions can produce fine images...
>Secondly is picture quality. The handycam has a VERY large amount of
>noise. I know that a 1/4" 3CCD prosumer camera is going to be scads
>better than a 1/4" one ccd consumer camera, but if I really want a
>professional look would I be better off going with one 1/2" CCD pro
>camera like the DV500 or the DVC200?
Not necessarily. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
for a comparison of various Sony imaging types in
Mini-DV, especially the low-light examples. The
more sensitive Sony 1/3" "HAD" chip type used in the
VX2000/PD150/DSR250 can make up for the difference
in size between its chips and 1/2" chips, producing
a very smooth image and good color in a wide range
of light levels...
>I don't know of anyplace locally
>that sells these cameras so I can't really go see for myself the
>difference in picture quality that a 1/2"ccd has over a 1/3", 1/4" etc.
>Being heavy into computer graphics there would be a whole lot of
>chromakeying going on so I want as little noise as possible. Both from
>the perspective of making the chromakey process easier and from the
>perspective of having the live action footage match up with the 3d
>rendered footage easier.
Clean chromakeying can be a bit of a challenge with
Mini-DV, regardless of the camera image quality...
>Obviously we can't all have Sony's $100,000 Attack of the Clones camera,
>but I would like something that is not just better than, but leaps and
>bounds better than my handycam. I don't want my movies coming out
>looking like a cheesy used car commercial. (What REALLY scares me is
>that the cameras used to make the crappy looking used car commercials
>probably cost more than anything I can afford, which means I'll end up
>looking worse)
Depends on the gear, and on your skills...;-)
>Anyhow, I really don't know anything at all about the higher end cameras
>and reading on the manufacturers websites doesn't give me anything but
>marketing hype.
It is good you realize this at this point...;-)
Same for magazine reviews, too, at least in the US...
>It's been very hard to find a review or comparison on
>the internet that wasn't either obviously biased or assumes a much
>larger knowledge of other cameras than I have.
Try mine, listed above - they are comparative, which
is more useful than "reviewing in a vacuum", I think.
And people generally find them fairly objective (at
least those who are not "religiously committed" to
particular brands/models before seeing the evidence...;-).
>The main thing is that in all likelihood this will be the only camera I
>setup I will be able to afford for a very long time. I'd really like to
>get a camera or pair of cameras that I can grow into.
>Thanks in advance for any advice given, and I apologize in advance if I
>start any flamewars over the best camera! :)
We've been through 'em before, and survived...;-)
There is no perfect camera, and the best is only
somewhat better than the worst, and the worst is
still useable - but one of the best often costs
little more (if any) than the worst, so why not
then get one of the best...? Among the best, choose
between "handycam" form vs. "shoulder-mount",
great auto controls and poor manual controls vs.
the reverse, etc. A good camera makes shooting
easier, with a higher percentage of good resulting
footage, and with fewer limitations determining
what can, and cannot, be shot successfully with
it... It makes sense to me to look for the best
you can get for the money spent - less really is
less useful...;-)