On Mon, 14 May 2001 06:15:25 GMT, "adrian"
>I've been looking for a couple months now for a DV camcorder.. after
>becoming interested in filmmaking. I've hit all the websites, reviews
>covering the XL-1 and VX2000, maybe not so many on the JVC or Panasonic
><$5000 models. After reading endless articles, seeing countless "HISS"
>claims, and comparing all kinds of specs.. well, if anyone can answer any of
>these questions that'd be great.
>
>First the vx2000 'hiss' problem, which sounds like just a low signal to
>noise ratio.. if it exists I'd be able to maybe just use good recording
>technique, editing out any silence in an NLE later right?.. Thought I'd ask
>people who've actually used the camcorder.. (anyone used it to shoot a
>film?) I am 17, and so VX2000 is really the best camcorder i can afford at
>$2100.. right?
Yes, and, yes, but the VX-2000 does NOT have this "problem"
(see long thread on this elsewhere), so there is no need to
remove it during editing... But I would expect to pay more
than $2100 realistically, and with 1-2 additional decent-
capacity batteries, a good WA (Canon WD-58 and/or Sony
VCL-ES06 and 58->52mm step-down ring - see my review
at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm for more info),
and a good UV filter for lens protection (Hoya), the total
will be more. Look at the TRV-900 as a cheaper alternative,
if necessary... (I assume that one of the review sites
you visited was www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm ...?;-).
>Second, it would be great if I got a camcorder that used the same lenses as
>my SLR. Looks like the only one with this feature is the XL-1. Has anyone
>found this real useful (ie being able to utilize lens collection)? Anyone
>not happy with the VX2000's 45-500 35mm focal length equivalent lens?
With 35mm-type lenses on video cameras, due to the
differences in image areas, all (even fisheyes)
become tele lenses (multiply the 35mm FL by about 7
to get a rough equivalent in 35mm terms of that lenses'
FL on a video camera... Most people (unless doing VERY
long tele work), do not find this feature useful.
Having interchangeable lenses is potentially useful,
but the cost, limited selection, and loss of stabilizer
limit the usefulness of this feature, too (most use
WA converters in Mini-DV, useable on any camera...).
>This XL-1 vs VX2000 is irrelevant if neither can achieve a look similar to
>film in terms of frame rate and subsequent motion blur. I wanted to see if
>this would be possible, so I spent an hour or two playing with a clip of a
>generated moving black square in DV format in Premiere 6.. First I threw
>out half the fields and interpolated the remaining ones, giving me 30 fps,
>or 60 fields with each one shown twice i think. Throwing out frames to get
>something closer to 24 fps produced a ridiculous jerkiness. I guess i was
>under the impression that it would be possible somehow to average the frames
>to make the video continuous. Even after using trials of "cinelook" and
>some other AE plugin the best results I got were from throwing out every
>other field, interpolating the remaining one, and using "frame blending" in
>Premiere to simulate some kind of motion blur/frame blur whatever you want
>to call it. Is this as close as I can get to film's 24fps from an NTSC
>camcorder? (Many people point out Spike Lee's Bamboozled, but after seeing
>trailers and interviews, it seems that the director/DP weren't looking for a
>'film look'.. maybe I will settle for PBS hacky documentary look or BBS
>"Mystery" drama look)
Video is video (with several advantages over film...), and
film is film - I think it is foolish to try to make one look
like the other. Video, shot with understanding of its
strengths and weaknesses, can look GREAT, with no apologies
needed...;-) BTW, video can use every bit of available
resolution to look its best, so I prefer not to throw away
any with letterboxing, deinterlacing, or by shooting in
"PS"-mode. Shoot for TV, shoot interlaced, non-letterboxed,
appropriately-lit, with the best gear used optimally, and
with a good "eye", the results can be rich, sharp, and
wonderful; shoot to simulate film, and the results are
likely to be of noticeably limited quality in several
respects... (stepping down, but temporarily, from soap
box...;-).
>Also, what are differences between the various DV editing firewire boards
>(the software codec ones). Is it just the DV codec they use and the bundled
>software? If I have an NLE and Microsoft's DV codec (came with w/ windows
>2000 i think) will just any $40 OHCI 400 firewire card do?
With a suitable NLE (Premiere-6, others), yes, but codecs
vary in quality (look for the 10-generations Raptor article
on my web page, listed under "I babble" - there is a URL
there for tests of several other codecs [the results are
sometimes not pretty ;-]) I recommend the Canopus Raptor
for its ease of installation, solid and easily-used
software, and excellent (accurate and fast-rendering)
codec (BTW, most "real-time" cards aren't RT, except
under very limited conditions, and renders can take
longer than with the Raptor...).
>Again with the VX2000 audio, both the Studio 1 and Beachtek XLR adapters
>look too expensive/bulky. Will a straight stereo mini to XLR adapter work
>(ie will the impedence match)? I've seen some offered that will block the
>2.5-3v coming from the jack. Is balanced audio worth a bulky adapter?
Depends on use. The XLR boxes impedence-match, provide
level controls, and places to mount the XLR sockets - but
I'm a fan of using simpler mini-plug mics for much work,
and I don't bother with XLRs. I recorded with single-ended
mic systems for years without problems (even whole
orchestras, with extended line lengths...). The need for
balanced-line audio is often overstated, I think...;-