Two weeks ago, I brought the JVC GR-D728. I got it to replace my broken Canon. It cost £149! With Widescreen! Anyway, I let someone film us playing football last friday, and the results were stunning. I know people will scoff on here because I will also use it to make my films but the quality is quite good. I know about `specs` for cameras, and what to look for, but on a tight budget, it is really quite good.
I was quite impressed.
Your next Camcorder?
-
Brian Saberton
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
- Location: Scotland
I have a little Sony HC42 that I use on holiday as it is so compact and easy to carry. It has a proper wide screen chip and I bought a Sony wide angle adaptor lens plus a supplemetary mike that sits in the hot shoe. The only things missing are an Svideo output and mic jack but it does have fire wire and the results (picture and sound) are excellent.
My other main camera is a Canon XM2 that I use for more serious filming. I'm not even thinking about HD at the moment - I'm quite happy with Mini DV.
My other main camera is a Canon XM2 that I use for more serious filming. I'm not even thinking about HD at the moment - I'm quite happy with Mini DV.
Brian Saberton
-
Mike Shaw
Feeling I ought to upgrade from my Sony TVR 900 (why? why? why?), and seeing that the HC7 sported 'slo mo - 3 seconds worth at a time' which I dearly wanted (why? why?), I lashed out for that cam. It has impressive features, on paper ... but its HD and widescreen by default.
It is a very nice little cam - better quality results (to my eyes) than my 900, but
* Almost all the controls are touch screen.
* The screen is about half the size of my 900's - which I rarely use anyway, but with the HC7, the screen is essential if you want to control the cam.
* The viewfinder is like looking down the wrong end of a telescope. Using the screen in daylight - even with an added hood, is a nightmare. And of course, adding a hood makes the 'touch-screen controls' difficult to access. I now have a rubber pencil for that. Ugh!
* The quality of the slo-mo is rubbish - virtually unusable. It didn't say that in the blurbs. But it does in the manual. Thanks. I've bought it now.
* my MiniDV VCR (Sony GVD1000E) won't playback the tapes in HD format - they have to be transferred or recorded as normal DVs. Also, although I can edit in HD (Avid Liquid), my only option is to burn it back to miniDV on the HC7 if I want to view the film at home (yes ... I also lashed out on a widescreen HD TV...). Otherwise, for club use etc the HD is a waste of time.
So, one way or another, I feel I boobed. My 900 is still perfectly adequate for the films I make. The HC7 is smaller, lighter maybe, but by the time I've added a tripod, and filled out the gadget bag with gizmos, weight isn't really a problem. Except a lighter cam is more difficult to hold steady.
Definiely a case of not looking properly before I leapt.
I should have saved up a bit longer and gone for a Sony FX...
Oh well.
It is a very nice little cam - better quality results (to my eyes) than my 900, but
* Almost all the controls are touch screen.
* The screen is about half the size of my 900's - which I rarely use anyway, but with the HC7, the screen is essential if you want to control the cam.
* The viewfinder is like looking down the wrong end of a telescope. Using the screen in daylight - even with an added hood, is a nightmare. And of course, adding a hood makes the 'touch-screen controls' difficult to access. I now have a rubber pencil for that. Ugh!
* The quality of the slo-mo is rubbish - virtually unusable. It didn't say that in the blurbs. But it does in the manual. Thanks. I've bought it now.
* my MiniDV VCR (Sony GVD1000E) won't playback the tapes in HD format - they have to be transferred or recorded as normal DVs. Also, although I can edit in HD (Avid Liquid), my only option is to burn it back to miniDV on the HC7 if I want to view the film at home (yes ... I also lashed out on a widescreen HD TV...). Otherwise, for club use etc the HD is a waste of time.
So, one way or another, I feel I boobed. My 900 is still perfectly adequate for the films I make. The HC7 is smaller, lighter maybe, but by the time I've added a tripod, and filled out the gadget bag with gizmos, weight isn't really a problem. Except a lighter cam is more difficult to hold steady.
Definiely a case of not looking properly before I leapt.
I should have saved up a bit longer and gone for a Sony FX...
Oh well.
Responce to Mike...
Sony, Sony, Sony. Oh dear! What was Sony thinking with `Touch-Control`
It put me right off buying one. The Sony brand is FANTASTIC QUALITY, but touch screen. You lost my sale! How can any adult like us use these controls with stubby fingers on a 1`bit screen To save yourself a few quid no to make the MiniDV socket In and OUT You lost a Sale!
Now the Sony FX1. All I can say is "GET ONE". A good pratical camera.
The Sony Touch Control on the first camera mentioned needs the Tissues to wipe the eyes. The Tissues for the Sony FX would be used for something else! It looks soooo sexy!
Sony, Sony, Sony. Oh dear! What was Sony thinking with `Touch-Control`
It put me right off buying one. The Sony brand is FANTASTIC QUALITY, but touch screen. You lost my sale! How can any adult like us use these controls with stubby fingers on a 1`bit screen To save yourself a few quid no to make the MiniDV socket In and OUT You lost a Sale!Now the Sony FX1. All I can say is "GET ONE". A good pratical camera.
The Sony Touch Control on the first camera mentioned needs the Tissues to wipe the eyes. The Tissues for the Sony FX would be used for something else! It looks soooo sexy!
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
-
Mike Shaw
Yes, that wasn't very clever of me was it. I should have raved about all its good features (like 'Spot Focus' - which works very well and is very fast ... and obviously has to be a 'touch screen' control ) and then offered it for sale, putting the funds forward for the far more desirable FX.
Oh well. Where's that lottery ticket...
Oh well. Where's that lottery ticket...
Re: Your Next Camcorder?
I suppose one would just move it straight to computer hard drive?Michael Slowe wrote:I agree that there are issues with the new XDCAM system but there will be plenty of options for storing your raw camera material. Personally, when I have finished a film I don't keep the camera originals anyway, I only keep master tapes (HD as well as DVCAM) of the final production.
But, Michael, you DON'T KEEP THE CAMERA ORIGINALS!!!!!
How would you do a re-edit if you decided it could be improved on? (I know its hard to improve on your final productions, but even so!)
Peter
-
FILM THURSO
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
- Location: Thurso
- Contact:
Add my astonishment to Michael's not keeping the camera originals. I have all the stuff I have shot, all the Video8 and Hi8 was transfered to DV on the full size DV cassettes to keep the sheer amount of space under control. I quite often borrow stuff from past shoots and have given shots to other film makers.
I have a detailed paper paper catalog of some tapes using CatDV and a general paper catalog of everything. I also have a lot of material on DVDs, I know that the quality is lower than DV but it may have a longer life than tape.
Why? Partly for me but we have two professional historians in the family who regularly sweep family memoribilia for their personal archive. They have also pointed out that most communication nowadays is ephemeral (telephone calls, text messages, e-mails etc) and leaves no trace for future historians who love correspondence, photographs, bills, receipts and so on.
Ned C
I have a detailed paper paper catalog of some tapes using CatDV and a general paper catalog of everything. I also have a lot of material on DVDs, I know that the quality is lower than DV but it may have a longer life than tape.
Why? Partly for me but we have two professional historians in the family who regularly sweep family memoribilia for their personal archive. They have also pointed out that most communication nowadays is ephemeral (telephone calls, text messages, e-mails etc) and leaves no trace for future historians who love correspondence, photographs, bills, receipts and so on.
Ned C
-
Michael Slowe
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm
Your Next Camcorder?
Firstly let me support all those who don't want to go to the trouble of changing cameras. Many of the best films I have seen over the years were shot on the simplest kit, once again stupid, IT'S THE FILM MAKER NOT THE KIT. I merely answered the question about my ideal camera from what's currently possible.
Now, I seem to have horrified some of my friends by saying I don't keep camere originals once a production is completed. Why on earth should I? I never go back to re cut a film. Once it's done it's done as far as I am concerned, even if that wise old owl Watterson suggests ways it could be improved! Also, my DVCAM (or HDCAM in some cases) master tapes are of such good quality as to be comparable to camera originals. As a documentary maker I shoot huge quantities of material to give me plenty of editing options and I simply don't have sufficient space (or archiving organisational shills) in my cutting room to keep everything. Don't understand the outrage!!
Now, I seem to have horrified some of my friends by saying I don't keep camere originals once a production is completed. Why on earth should I? I never go back to re cut a film. Once it's done it's done as far as I am concerned, even if that wise old owl Watterson suggests ways it could be improved! Also, my DVCAM (or HDCAM in some cases) master tapes are of such good quality as to be comparable to camera originals. As a documentary maker I shoot huge quantities of material to give me plenty of editing options and I simply don't have sufficient space (or archiving organisational shills) in my cutting room to keep everything. Don't understand the outrage!!
Ned, I'm going back to pen and paper as I think it is more likely to survive than anything else. Also, I like to use nice fountain pens. I keep a diary only now on paper, and not on computer. But I do have something big I've written on computer (about 130 pages). I have a hard copy as well as a safety thing.ned c wrote:Partly for me but we have two professional historians in the family who regularly sweep family memoribilia for their personal archive. They have also pointed out that most communication nowadays is ephemeral (telephone calls, text messages, e-mails etc) and leaves no trace for future historians who love correspondence, photographs, bills, receipts and so on.
Ned C
Computers, tapes and CD/DVD's are well known for their unreliability, and I've lost a lot of data in the past. I now back up on several external hard drives.
Peter
Re: Your Next Camcorder?
No outrage, but we are just a bit concerned, Michael. But I do understand as I know you shoot lots of footage and only use a relatively small amount, and it must be a huge storage and archiving problem, especially in HD.Michael Slowe wrote: Now, I seem to have horrified some of my friends by saying I don't keep camere originals once a production is completed. Why on earth should I? I never go back to re cut a film. Once it's done it's done as far as I am concerned, even if that wise old owl Watterson suggests ways it could be improved! Also, my DVCAM (or HDCAM in some cases) master tapes are of such good quality as to be comparable to camera originals. As a documentary maker I shoot huge quantities of material to give me plenty of editing options and I simply don't have sufficient space (or archiving organisational shills) in my cutting room to keep everything. Don't understand the outrage!!
Peter
-
FILM THURSO
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
- Location: Thurso
- Contact:
Even if you never go back to recut a film the camera originals have archive value- maybe not to you but someone in the future may be interested enough to make a documentary about amateur film making. Raw footage is extremely useful because it enables a rare glimpse at what goes on between takes.
What say if all copies of a complete film ended up lost. There would be no chance of recovering the film if no camera originals extisted. All these old films that get restored and released on DVD often come from multipul sources to get the fullest possible version as close the original intended production. Film from release prints to original negatives are hauled in to rebuild old movies. Some way into the future someone might want to do the same with amateur films. We all know how highly valuable home movies are to film archives. I know of an example of a cine film of a major fire in Thurso that was badly transferred to VHS and the original was dumped. Because of that all that remains is a VERY LOW RES copy on VHS. I got a second generation copy of it which made it thrird generation by the time it got into "Caithness At The Home Movies". To think I got the first offer of the film years ago but couldn't take it.
Right now archives are most interested in general home-movies of family and friends, day trip and holidays etc as a record of our day to day lives but in the future they will come round to wanting to preserve our 'story' films too. Thank goodness most of us will have our own archives full of footage.
What say if all copies of a complete film ended up lost. There would be no chance of recovering the film if no camera originals extisted. All these old films that get restored and released on DVD often come from multipul sources to get the fullest possible version as close the original intended production. Film from release prints to original negatives are hauled in to rebuild old movies. Some way into the future someone might want to do the same with amateur films. We all know how highly valuable home movies are to film archives. I know of an example of a cine film of a major fire in Thurso that was badly transferred to VHS and the original was dumped. Because of that all that remains is a VERY LOW RES copy on VHS. I got a second generation copy of it which made it thrird generation by the time it got into "Caithness At The Home Movies". To think I got the first offer of the film years ago but couldn't take it.
Right now archives are most interested in general home-movies of family and friends, day trip and holidays etc as a record of our day to day lives but in the future they will come round to wanting to preserve our 'story' films too. Thank goodness most of us will have our own archives full of footage.
I am VERY shocked with Michael about not keeping the Original Camera Footage! It`s bad enougth when I deleate the editing Projects in Premiere because if I do need to alter anything then I would have to re-edit it all again.
When I have finished a film. I keep the finished film on the computer and also put it onto MiniDV and store it. If my computers harddrive goes down, then I still have a copy. Storing onto DVD is a waist of time because of the compression used on DVD`s and they are a bit dodgie in the long run.
Michael, I think you have been told off !
Sorry !
When I have finished a film. I keep the finished film on the computer and also put it onto MiniDV and store it. If my computers harddrive goes down, then I still have a copy. Storing onto DVD is a waist of time because of the compression used on DVD`s and they are a bit dodgie in the long run.
Michael, I think you have been told off
!Sorry
!Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
-
Mike Shaw
I find all this fascinating. I always keep the raw shoot material, on the original media, and I always keep a 'master' copy of any movie I make, on miniDV. Not DVD.
The master, because then I can copy it off if (if if) I need another copy or I want to use scenes in another film.
And the originals because, rarely are all the scenes shot actually used in a movie, and even if they are, sometimes I want a shot of something or somewhere as a refgerence or a background, and I already have what is required. Where else would I find clips of hawaiin surfers, the inside of a volcano, the lift going up the Eifel tower in a hurry? (Well, not quite in a hurry ... I don't index the movies)
But, above all, I'm a bit of a squirrel when it comes to 'throwing stuff away'. The statement 'One day that will be useful' is the bane of my wife's life ... and I regularly have to subcumb and remove mounds of accumulationg clutter. (On the bright side, that makes room for more...
)
But I never ditch old movie shoots. And, strangely - and happily - my wife agrees with that.
The master, because then I can copy it off if (if if) I need another copy or I want to use scenes in another film.
And the originals because, rarely are all the scenes shot actually used in a movie, and even if they are, sometimes I want a shot of something or somewhere as a refgerence or a background, and I already have what is required. Where else would I find clips of hawaiin surfers, the inside of a volcano, the lift going up the Eifel tower in a hurry? (Well, not quite in a hurry ... I don't index the movies)
But, above all, I'm a bit of a squirrel when it comes to 'throwing stuff away'. The statement 'One day that will be useful' is the bane of my wife's life ... and I regularly have to subcumb and remove mounds of accumulationg clutter. (On the bright side, that makes room for more...
)But I never ditch old movie shoots. And, strangely - and happily - my wife agrees with that.