(videographer)Choosing a camera - is my logic sound?

38 replies [Last post]
chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

I have been looking for a new camcorder for a while and would like anyones input on my conclusion which is that the Panasonic HMC151 is the only camcorder for me... here is my reasoning:

I need a camcorder that can produce HD images as more an more clients request it.
I need a camcorder that I can record long events with ( 2 hour concerts etc). This rules out HDV
My budget is £3000 max.
I don't need 50+mbps because I wont be doing broadcast work, and if anything comes up I'll hire something suitable (plus the XF300 is massively out of my budget).

With this in mind I find myself left with the Panasonic HVX200 (used), HPX171 (used), HMC151, Sony NX5 (used)

The NX5 seems similar to the HMC151 and a slightly better beast, but for my purposes not quite better enough to justify the extra expense.

The p2 pannys, the HVX200 and HPX171 are better cameras offering DVCPROHD at 100mbps, but the maximum capacity P2 card is 64GB which will record 64 minutes at DVCPROHD100. It does say on the panasonic site that 'the camera records for up to 160 minutes in 720/24pN native' with a 64GB card - im not quite sure what this means but it temps me. I understand that getting 2 32gb cards and hot swapping would be an option... but i dont have a laptop to take in the field or anything I could put the files on (or a budget to get anything to do that task)

Also what puts me off is that I would have to buy used, and the HVX is quite an old camera now. The HMC is newer and with a very cheap 32GB SDHC card I could record 180 minutes at 'highest quality' 1080p.

So there it is... my only option? What do you think? DV is out of the question and the price of P2 or whatever the sony equivalent is called puts their offerings out of my price range. I would be interested to hear the thoughts on the HVX 200 - I could get a used one for around £1500 and 2 64gb P2 cards for around £1350 which would give 128 minutes of DVCPROHD100, but is nearly £3000 for a used camcorder that was released 5 years ago better than £2700 for a HMC151 (or cheaper used) for the sake of 100mbps and DVCPROHD which won't be of apparent benefit to me? I would love to hear peoples opinions on this. I have also noticed that the HVX200a doesn't come up on ebay much, and the HMC151 shares the same sensor upgrade over the HVX200 as this which could possibly make the HMC151 better than the original HVX200??

I also may have left much needed information out so please feel free to ask any questions. I can't budge on recording time, it needs to be roughly 2 hours uninterrupted, and £3000 is pretty strict, but I can budge a couple of hundred here and there...

Thanks,
Chris

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Chris, you tell us what you need but not what you're going to shoot, so lacking that info we can only but guess if the hardware you point at will do the job. From your needs list the HMC151 looks to tick a lot of the boxes, not the least of which is that it'll be brand new with a three year warranty and you can feed it cheap SDHC cards.

Side by side with the NX5 you'll immediately see why the Sony costs more and I dispute your suggestion that it's a 'slightly better beast', but then again it means buying second hand. And buying a camcorder is just the first step on a buying spree that includes a back-up camera, a couple of tripods, kit bags, a selection of microphones and maybe a pc upgrade. Maybe - but we don't know what you're shooting.

If the 151 appeals I'd go for it. It's been out there some time now and proved itself, and I rather like its CCDs in the onslaught of CMOS competition. Its zoom is limited but it starts off good and wide. It's side-screen resolution is crude but at least the spam is outside the picture area. And there's lots of user customisable menu settings that you can play with.

tom.

mooblie
mooblie's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 27 2001

I'm no expert on current camera price/spec comparisons, but couldn't you get a used EX1 or EX1R for £3000?

Martin - DVdoctor in moderation. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The HMC151 camera section is exactly the same as the HPX171, the differences are only in the recorder. The 151's menus are slightly less flexible than the 171's but that's about it, performance is the same.

But by far the biggest problem here is to get you to think hard about what you intend to shoot with it. CCDs are preferable to CMOS for some purposes, but not others, and so on.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

I think the HMC150 for your purposes may well be the best bet, but a couple of thoughts.....

Are you aware of the new Canons that have been announced, the XF100/105? Should be available to buy in a month or so time, and should be within your budget - reports are suggesting something over £2,000, unlikely to be over £3,000.

Noone is expecting the cameras themselves to get broadcast approval - but they do come with the 50Mbs 422 codec. It's worth also pointing out that they don't have to use that bitrate - they are switchable to also work at HDV bitrates (25Mbs) and 35Mbs (as the EX). For your purposes, I'd suspect the economy of at least the 35bs mode may be useful.

An advantage of any of those codec options is that are far more easily editable without transcoding - AVC-HD requires more computer power natively. The disadvantage is file size, but with SDHC/CF cards the price they are, does that really matter?

The main advantage of the Canon over the Panasonic cameras you mention is likely to be resolution, and that's becoming more and more true as screens get ever bigger, and resolutions of 1920x1080 become the norm. I've seen HMC151 footage in isolation and thought it looked pretty good. Then seen it intercut with an EX and it just got blown away.

Don't know that much about the NX5 - it's also AVC-HD, but the spec is a much better chipset than the 151, and I believe it has lens controls (iris etc) that are more manual, an nicer to use?

I certainly think the HMC150 is a far better bet than the 171 or the 200. It's worth noting that the sensors these cameras use give resolution just short of full 720p frame resolution. Yet the DVCProHD codec only resolves 960 horizontal, and becomes the limiting factor. With the HMC151 in 720p mode it's full raster, so full 1280x720 resolution, nicely matching the resolution off the chip. It doesn't force you into 1080 mode just to get that last little bit of horizontal resolution.

Other factors to do with the 171/200 I think you cover very well yourself - cost and runtime of P2 v SDHC. As far as "........records for up to 160 minutes in 720/24pN native' with a 64GB card " goes, then the meaning is that it will work 24fps (720p/24) instead of the normal US 60fps. Fewer frames, longer running time. The implication is in motion rendition - 24fps = film look, or "jerky" motion. (Those figures are only really applicable for the US - the UK version is likely to be 25fps versus "normal" 50fps, so about 120 minutes with the 64GB card.

I wouldn't even consider hotswapping and downloading via a concert, certainly not if by yourself.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The 171/151 is better than the HVX200, which has three 1280x720 ccds arranged in quincunx to get more vertical and horizontal resolution at the expense of diagonal resolution and coloured aliasing (see my test reports, details in my signature). The HVX200 is a development of the DVX100, whereas the 151/171 are new builds. If storage costs are important, then the 151 will win hands down.

the Canon XF100/105 is interesting, in that it's the little brother of the XF300/305, which got broadcast approval spectacularly quickly (less than 2 days after my tests were published). I'm scheduled to be testing the XF105 early in December (it would be earlier but I'm away in the US for Thanksgiving). It has the potential for broadcast approval, because the rules are being changed as we speak.

The new rules aren't a simple yes/no decision. I expect to see some form of scale, similar to the way DiscoveryHD do it (Gold, Silver, Bronze rating), because the broadcasters have a range of requirements (e.g. stringers' news cameras need not perform to the same standard as those for top-end drama). I'll release details of any such changes as and when I hear about them, but you can see the early evidence of it in the BBC's list of approved cameras.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Alan Roberts wrote:
The 171/151 is better than the HVX200, which has three 1280x720 ccds arranged in quincunx to get more vertical and horizontal resolution at the expense of diagonal resolution and coloured aliasing .......

I think you mean 960x540, don't you.......?

And whilst the 171/151 are claimed to have better CCDs than the original 200, I'm pretty sure they are still 960x540 with the offset you refer to. Any improvements don't affect the resolution.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

Thank you for all of your replies - I realise now that I failed to mention rather a lot! I apologise for this, I was too wrapped up in camera model numbers to remember the important stuff...

Tom - You're quite right, what I am going to shoot is rather important. I make promotional videos for schools and small businesses. I shoot on a Canon 550d DSLR which I have found to actually be ideal for shooting in schools because of its small size/high quality video. Also they all think its for stills so don't act up in front of the camera as much which is great!

Some schools have approached me wanting things like concerts, plays etc recording but I have to let them down and miss out on a lot of money because the Canon is limited to 12 minutes of recording. I am looking for a camcorder that can record continuously so I can record concerts, plays, long events and even band gigs as one has approached me.

What I intend to do (as it is all I can afford to do) is use the HMC151 (or whatever I decide on) as the main camera at the back getting the full band/ full stage shot, and get up and close with the 550d - a second camera operator with a 7d will be available much of the time too. As the DSLRs are limited to 12 minutes of recording, the HMC151 will be used to ensure there is always an available shot on the edit - once I have synced the footage I will do a multi-cam edit and ensure that when the 550d and 7d are inbetween filming that the active camera is the HMC151.

Because of what I intend to shoot, I thought the 151 would be preferable to the NX5 and the Canon xf305 because it has CCD's rather than CMOS and there will be a lot of flash photography which I believe can cause problems, is this right?

Sorry for the bold statement about the nx5 being a slightly better beast - it is indeed a superior camcorder but I thought that given the extra price and the CMOS that the HMC151 would be a better choice? Am I wrong? I am wary of buying used because a 3 year warranty would be nice! The price is not flexible because of the other considerations as you say - I have a tripod and microphones but will be spending £500 on another tripod, a couple of hundred on microphones and have memory to buy, so the £3000 price was with those considerations in mind. The PC upgrade will not be necessary as I have an 8-core Mac Pro, and it is for this reason that AVCHD does not put me off - I already have to convert my 550d footage to ProRes to edit, so it is an established part of my workflow.

Moobile - I cannot find the EX1 for under £3500 used and then there is the cost of memory on top of that. It is a superb camera and would be a worthwhile investment but I simply cannot afford it - I have recently started up and I need money to pay bills etc. This camera is intended to last about 3 years while I save for something much better - I am wanting something affordable so I can meet the demand of my clients but not have to cancel Christmas!

Alan - I agree, the CMOS vs CCD distinction is important - am I correct in assuming that CCDs would better suit my needs?

Infocus - Indeed you have given a lot to consider - I dismissed the XF-105 as mentioned above, because of the CMOS chip - and am I correct in assume that it only has a single chip? What are the implications of this?

Also the computer power is not a problem as mentioned. As for the resolution, I certainly agree that resolution is an issue - the 1080p raster of the xf105 sensor is tempting, but the limited 10x zoom and CMOS puts me off - convince me otherwise perhaps?

Also, I am dealing with clients who want 'HD' but don't know what it is. They would be more than happy with a 720p video from the HMC151 (I didn't know it did 720p full raster) or even a 1080p video that used the pixel shifting technology. As long as the dimensions said 1920x1080 they simply wouldn't care (and likewise if they had asked for a 720p video) - to be honest they, up to now, have not even cared whether it is 720p or 1080p - the small businesses and schools I have dealt with just want to be able to say they have a HD promo. Also, a lot of the concerts won't actually see the light of day in HD, they will be produced to DVD.

I think I may have answered everything there, please pipe up if I haven't. Any further thoughts based on this post?

I should probably post you all a gold star and a smartie for reading that, sorry to make such a long post, but I really appreciate all of your help, thank you.

Chris

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Yes, 960x540, but the lens on the 151 isn't quite as sharp so it do0esn't excite the aliases in the same way, proved on test.

don't need the gold star, but the Smartie would be nice :)

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Steamage
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2003
chill901 wrote:
Also, a lot of the concerts won't actually see the light of day in HD, they will be produced to DVD.

In which case, 720p is possibly a better acquisition format than 1080i or 1080p, being easier to down-scale without such obvious "moire" interference patterns (you won't get rid of them entirely without some very expensive hardware - will you, Alan?). You can do 50p at 720-lines, too, which should give nice smooth motion. Sounds like another nudge towards the Panasonic.

By the sound of it, low light performance will be pretty important, which might make the Sonys worth another look, since they seem to have the edge over other makes in this respect. If the NX5 is too pricey, how about the "consumer" version, the AX-2000? A quick search suggests a price of around £2300 - £2500. I'm not sure of all the differences from the "pro" version, but it has XLR mic inputs (previous Sony models only had this on the pro versions) and customisable picture profiles. Mind you, I don't think it does 720/50p...

No mention of JVC - don't they do some cams that record MPEG2 to SD-card?

Mark @ Steam Age Pictures - Steam trains on video in aid of railway preservation societies. Latest release: "Mainline 2012, LMS Locomotives", on DVD or Bluray Disc.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010
Steamage wrote:
In which case, 720p is possibly a better acquisition format than 1080i or 1080p, being easier to down-scale without such obvious "moire" interference patterns (you won't get rid of them entirely without some very expensive hardware - will you, Alan?). You can do 50p at 720-lines, too, which should give nice smooth motion. Sounds like another nudge towards the Panasonic.

By the sound of it, low light performance will be pretty important, which might make the Sonys worth another look, since they seem to have the edge over other makes in this respect. If the NX5 is too pricey, how about the "consumer" version, the AX-2000? A quick search suggests a price of around £2300 - £2500. I'm not sure of all the differences from the "pro" version, but it has XLR mic inputs (previous Sony models only had this on the pro versions) and customisable picture profiles. Mind you, I don't think it does 720/50p...

No mention of JVC - don't they do some cams that record MPEG2 to SD-card?

To be honest I had not considered the AX-2000 because of the CMOS and the handycam written on in... should I consider it? I know a lot of people are put off by the fact that it doesn't do progressive natively, only pulldown.

As for the JVC options I think only the JVC GY-HM100 is an option which seems very affordable but its tiny and the 1/4” Progressive scan 3CCD doesn't appeal. I will re-evaluate my budget and see if an NX5 would be affordable in the near future... i doubt it mind!

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

I'm biased, because I work for the Panasonic AVCCAM distributor in the UK, but I think you will be happy with the 151 low light performance. I also have some setup files for it to give very good performance in very low light situations.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Chris, the CCDs of the 151 react in a far nicer way under electronic flashthan anything sporting the CMOS banner, but for the work you describe I really don't think CMOS should be discounted.

I shot weddings for years on a CCD Z1 and the change to the CMOS NX5 gives heartbreaking results when 150 electronic flashes fire at the cake-cutting (only 25 people, but cameras now fire bursts of flash to set focus, exposure and so on. Then the guest insists on taking yet more). And the tog's doing 5fps just because he can and there's poor me getting this revolting flash banding and having to smile with it.

I too would avoid anything smaller than 1"/3 chips these days.

The AX2000 is interesting and with XLR inputs gets more interesting by the day. You lose GPS, slo-mo and 50p probably, compared to the NX5.

I'm slightly worried that the 151 will be in gain-up mode at these concerts (move away from wide-angle and you quickly lose stops) and intercutting it with 7D footage is asking a lot.

tom.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

tom - the 150 would be used wide angle for any concerts so I don't lose stops, but I appreciate what you are saying.

I may look like the moron I am saying this, but because the majority of the concerts would be shot for DVD, so would intercutting with a 7d be less of an issue? Presumably the image would not stand up against the 7d in 1080p, but on DVD would the difference be that bad? Or would it be worse?

The AX2000 is interesting, and GPS is not an issue, but at a very similar price to the 151 it seems to have slightly fewer features (although a 20x zoom would be brilliant)

chris

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
chill901 wrote:
Infocus - Indeed you have given a lot to consider - I dismissed the XF-105 as mentioned above, because of the CMOS chip - and am I correct in assume that it only has a single chip? What are the implications of this?

Yes, it's CMOS, but personally I'd call that an advantage OVERALL. Yes it brings flash banding - but it also brings the possibility for better sensitivity, better dynamic range, and an overall "cleaner" look. It's also a key reason why cameras like the XF105 can get far better resolutions than CCD based cameras, without sacrificing sensitivity.

When you get flashguns going off, they do appear different between CMOS and CCD - by and large the flash gets split between two fields with CMOS, just affects one with CCD. Personally, I don't find it disturbing at normal speed, though it becomes worse if the material is slowed down. I find it a small price to pay for the other benefits.

It's important to realise there is CMOS and CMOS. The effects differ hugely between mobile phone chips and the sort of thing that gets used in Red. And do you hear people saying they won't use Red because it's CMOS? :)

As far as single chip goes, then my understanding is that the XF105 uses fundamemtally the same chip as the XF305 - but only one of them, and with Bayer filtering. The effect of that will be (relative to the XF305) to lower the resolution, and lower the sensitivity, probably by about a stop. But the benefit side to CMOSvCCD means you canexpect much better resolution than the Panasonic chipped cameras, and I'd expect probably better sensitivity as well.

Quote:
I certainly agree that resolution is an issue - the 1080p raster of the xf105 sensor is tempting, but the limited 10x zoom and CMOS puts me off - convince me otherwise perhaps?

Does the above help. :)

The XF105 may indeed record a 1080p raster - but bear in mind that is beyond the capabilities of the imaging chip to do justice to. (Because of the de-Bayering process.) Expect the max camera resolution to be more like 1400x800. The HMC150 is even worse - again, the claim is "full 1080p recording" - but it's chipset can only manage about 1100x650. It may be able to make a 1080p recording - but the resolution will still only be less than a 720p recording is capable of showing. (That's why I'd still expect the XF105 to look sharper, even in 720p mode.

Quote:
Also, a lot of the concerts won't actually see the light of day in HD, they will be produced to DVD.

I think I may have answered everything there, please pipe up if I haven't. Any further thoughts based on this post?

Regarding the first sentence, then whatever camera you get, 720p/50 recording is a good idea - it downconverts easily to SD, forming a unique field from a unique frame. Recording HD interlace inevitably means a de-interlace as the first step. But I think all the cameras discussed so far have a 720p mode?

Incidentally, be aware that the HMC151 only has one SDHC slot, which limits you to the max recording time of a single 32GB card. There is no possibility to hot swap, as in virtually every other solid state camera. That may not bother you (I think it gives about 2.5 hours?) but it's worth being aware of.

It may be more than you're prepared to spend, but the EX is a substantial improvement on any of the other cameras talked about. As far as cost goes, then are you aware that Sony have now sanctioned the use of SDHC cards in it via an adaptor? (With a few caveats.) Hence the memory costs needn't be much more than for the XF105 or any of the SDHC based cameras. Some people dislike the thought of using SDHC in it on reliability grounds. Well, SxS is likely to be more guaranteed than SDHC - but if the choice is another camera which ONLY takes SDHC, does it matter?

Maybe we've given you even more to think about, made your choice even more difficult, but I don't think anybody thinks the 171 or 200 would be a good choice. The HMC151 will give you most of the features they will, without the worst of their disadvantages.

rone01
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2009

The 171 is a decent camera, very reliable and came with a 5 year warranty which I believe you can transfer. Noise/sensitivity - were all improved over the HVX200. The lens is quite a bit wider too.

It's getting on a bit now though but we still give one lots of stick and the P2 format is fantastic too - I'm no advocate of SD cards for professional work but the new CLASS 10 cards have been good on my personal cameras.

We're keeping the 171 even though we are armed up to the teeth with cameras now as it's just been so great on many projects.

Red EPIC / Scarlet - Panasonic AC 90 -  besq.co.uk

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

(I think it gives about 2.5 hours?) - 3 hours at top quality on 32GB.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

You have all certainly given me a lot to think about. I can't really budge on price because I am fairly new to this and can't really afford it and have other financial considerations (read: under the thumb). I can't really afford to invest any more as there is no way of telling when the next bit of work will come along

The XF105 certainly seems like a good piece of kit but i'd hate to wait until January and miss out on a lot of school Christmas concerts.

The AX2000 seems good but apparently does not do 720p? This would cause me problems producing DVDs right?

I shall have to spend a while reviewing the situation in light of all of these extremely helpful posts - any further help is much appreciated. Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The HMC151 is nominally a 1920x1080 camera, but the achieved resolution (clean resolution) is about 1440x800, so it makes a lot of sense to use it in 720p mode. 720p is far easier to downconvert to SD, Richard and I did some comparison tests a year or so ago (unreported) which clearly confirmed that.

The problem with just reading camera specs is that they don't tell you how well they do it, that needs proper testing, which is what I do. I can't bring forward the XF105 test, because I'm in the US (visiting Canon, as it happens) in the first week that they will have one for test in the UK, but testing will happen very shortly after that. In the meantime, I'm not making any guesses as to its performance.

In your position right now, I'd go for a HMC151.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

i or p, neither will cause you problems when making DVDs.

Chrome
Offline
Joined: May 26 1999
chill901 wrote:
Some schools have approached me wanting things like concerts, plays etc recording but I have to let them down and miss out on a lot of money

That sentence reads like an oxymoron to me. :D

In my experience school budgets are either paltry or if your working on a 'do-it-for-free' business model, relying on your income from the sales of DVD's, then the correct licencing music added to the production costs and material costs reduces the profit (after the 'contribution' to the school fund) to only a few quid per unit, so unless you sell about 1000 it's hardly worth while. :rolleyes: That is at least if you intend to turn in a professional quality product you can be proud of. :cool: :)

foxvideo
foxvideo's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 1999

Agree with Chrome. We stopped doing school performances when we found out most schools only buy a script and the rights to perform, and most of the contracts from the script suppliers include a clause that states professional video recording of the performance is not allowed unless extra rights are purchased by the school - often at prohibitive rates, schools tend to choose to either ignore or even be unaware of this. Even if the recording rights are obtained by the school this extra cost has to be added somewhere, either in the ticket price or in the sale price of the DVD. The normal MCPS and PPL also has to be added making the price of a DVD to parents too expensive - they now tend to sit with their own handycam and save money.

Not intending to hijack this thread but basing a buying decision on the assumption of making "a lot of money" from school performances needs careful thought if you intend to do it professionally and with all the correct licences and insurances!

Dave Farrants Fox Video Editing

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
foxvideo wrote:
they now tend to sit with their own handycam and save money.

And make a godawful mess of it with shakes and coughs, wildly wrong exposures, heads in frame and mics here and not there. Sigh. Horrible.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

well the schools I have already worked with have coughed up and are willing to pay more. One has a production of a play it wrote and one has a brass band performance coming up but presumably I'd have to check what songs they were playing - but there would be no issues with the play...

When I say a lot of money, I mean a lot of money for me from a business I have just started up - £750-1000 to film a school play they wrote and edit it together is not to be sniffed at as far as i'm concerned. The DVD duplication is up to them (they know someone *winkwink* apparently)

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'a lot of money' but certainly enough to make getting a camcorder now worthwhile - lots of little amounts add up ;)

Chrome
Offline
Joined: May 26 1999
tom hardwick wrote:
And make a godawful mess of it with shakes and coughs, wildly wrong exposures, heads in frame and mics here and not there. Sigh. Horrible.

Yes thats right Tom, just look at 90% of YouTube footage. The alternative is prohibative most of the time. So for anyone doing this kind of work be VERY careful. Here's what happened to me recently...

I agreed in principle to make a film of a play for a theatre group of a famous but rarely performed play from a dead playwright. They contacted the people who hold the rights (from whom they already had got the rights to put the play on) to ask "How much to film for a DVD?". The reply was an astronomical figure (a large five figures! - many dozens of times the ticket sales), so of course we didn't do it... On the night of the play's performance, afterward a representative of the rights holder made themselves known to the plays director and said "I was asked to come along to ensure it was performed correctly and not being filmed"! :eek:

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had said "Bugger it, lets do it anyway" and turned up with cameras? :rolleyes: :eek:

Chrome
Offline
Joined: May 26 1999
chill901 wrote:
£750-1000 to film a school play they wrote and edit it together is not to be sniffed at as far as i'm concerned.

To be honest that IS quite a lot of money for a school play, and certainly not to be sniffed at. However I would expect quite a professional quality multi-camera production with high-quality stereo audio (not recorded on-camera) for that. :D
If they have not written all the play and perform all their own music and songs then be VERY careful is my advice.

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

well thats just the number being bandied about at the moment - I think as its an original play they are willing to pay, but the number could easily fall in negotiation - as you say you'd want a professional multicam edit!

Thats quite a shock story too, its such dodgy ground to walk on! Does anyone know if there are issues filming a band playing a cover song?

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

The thing is you didn't film it (properly) it was left to members of the audience to film it (very badly indeed) on their SanyoSpecials, iPhones and compact stills cameras in their jerky movie mode. So that's what the representative of the rights holder wants recorded? Well, unless he frisks every member of the audience as they take their seats, that's what he'll get, that's what folk will remember and that's what Youtube will publish.

Foot and shooting oneself therein spring to mind. It's the world gone mad and so be it. Now then, let's allow criminals to vote from behind their bars.

tom.

Chrome
Offline
Joined: May 26 1999

No Tom, I'm afraid you're wrong in this case. It wasn't that kind of theatre or performance. Let me assure you people there would not be filming it on mobile phones or anything else. Think more 'art theatre' and you'll be nearer the mark.

chill901 - There are LOTS of issues filming a band playing a cover... lots of copyright issues, such as have they got a license, are you paying for the corrrect licenses and depending on what's going to happen to the recording you may not be allowed to film it at all. I'm afraid I don't have time to explain more than that now... check some of the threads here before. Search on 'PPL & MCPS' and 'Filming Events' or 'Copyright' etc. that should bring up loads of threads on similar questions. :)

foxvideo
foxvideo's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 1999

You could take a look at johnxl1s's HM100 - a bargain at £1650 - Small footprint, very high (35mbps) quality, direct to QT or MP4 files, twin card slot etc - in all a very underated camera.

Dave Farrants Fox Video Editing

johnxl1s
Offline
Joined: Feb 3 2003

Only i have bills to pay i would keep both..!
john

colin rowe
colin rowe's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 16 2000

chill901 you have pm

Colin Rowe

chill901
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2010

Pm replied colin.

Thanks for everyones advice, what this has shown me is that I haven't done enough research/ don't know enough, so I have decided to hold off on getting anything at the moment and wait a number of months while I properly research it and actually get my hands on some of the cameras mentioned to test. And perhaps after doing so I will have more money and will be able to afford a better camcorder which will be better value for money in the long term.

Thanks for the advice chrome, I will search the forums for those topics. I know the band I wish to film have released most of the songs they cover on their albums, but they play a couple of songs live that they haven't released. Perhaps if they were to limit the number of covers in their set to only the ones on their albums and play more of their own material then this wouldn't be an issue? Anyway, a topic for another thread I'm sure.

Thanks again for the help, it has certainly given me food for thought... A feast more like! I only hope I can help other and contribute in the same way and be an active member of this forum, thanks!

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

Amongst all the tech talk of the electronic side of the cameras - pixels and codecs - I've been reminded that some things have been forgotten. Very early in this thread, Tom said:

tom hardwick wrote:
Side by side with the NX5 you'll immediately see why the Sony costs more and I dispute your suggestion that it's a 'slightly better beast', but then again it means buying second hand.

And in my earlier enthusiasm for the XF105 (which indisputable has the best codec around this price point) I'll confess I did overlook some aspects of the NX5. Biggest may be as far as the lens goes - it's a 20x zoom, so far better than either the HMC150 or XF105, and it's good and wide at the wide end as well, 29.5mm (ff 35 mm equivalent). That may be significant to you if it's intended position is at the back of a school hall.

Secondly, the focus/iris controls are far, far better, giving direct control as opposed to the servo arrangements of the HMC151/XF105. I find this a massive difference, and can only apologise for not thinking of it before.

There are lots of other differences (it has HD-SDI and HDMI outputs, not just HDMI for example) before even thinking of the far better resolution - the NX5 has twice the number of pixels of the HMC151, and it shows. So I fully agree with Tom - put the NX5 and the HMC150 side by side and you'll immediately see why the Sony costs more.

Dave R Smith
Offline
Joined: May 10 2005
chill901 wrote:
..I have decided to hold off on getting anything at the moment and wait a number of months while I properly research it and actually get my hands on some of the cameras mentioned to test.

Reminder:
Videoforum, or whatever is its current name, is typically at Earls Court In January (haven't seen promo info yet), so a chance for some hands on camera feel and very limited testing.
In 'old' days you could take media/tape for test takes on demo cameras - not so easy for solid state cameras - unless perhaps they can dump/copy data to memory stick while you are there.
HTH

Mark M
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 1999
Dave R Smith wrote:
Reminder:
Videoforum, or whatever is its current name, is typically at Earls Court In January

February.

http://www.broadcastvideoexpo.co.uk/

Adobe Certified Professional Premiere Pro CS6, Premiere Pro CC

Adobe Community Professional

Steamage
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2003
infocus wrote:
Secondly, the focus/iris controls are far, far better, giving direct control as opposed to the servo arrangements of the HMC151/XF105. I find this a massive difference, and can only apologise for not thinking of it before.

Are you sure about this? Just because they are adjusted by rings on the lens barrel doesn't necessarily mean that there's no servo between the controller and the moving parts.

We've all been talking about ultimate picture quality, lens lengths and bit-rates without thinking about how easy or difficult the cameras are to use. It's not a problem when the camera is just left unattended on a fixed tripod, but it would be an issue if you start using it more actively. For example, camera A has better specs than camera B but a naff viewfinder that makes focusing in poor light a problem, or a tempramental zoom control. Better to have steady, well-focused shots that are slightly less than maximum definition, than jerky, out-of-focus shots recorded with full 1080-line definition. You have to get your hands on the candidates to know...

In the general discussion, I'm surprised that no one has commented on the compromises implied by using DSLRs as roaming cameras. I know it has been discussed at length in other threads, so the details don't have to be repeated here. I had the distinct impression that the best way to get acceptable video from DSLRs is to keep both camera and subject as still as possible, so not exactly the ideal choice for this application?

The cheapest way to make decent DVDs of plays and concerts is probably to buy three second-hand Sony VX2100 or PD170 DV cameras - no down-conversion, dead easy to edit and still the best low-light performance at anything like an affordable price, though limited by tape capacity and not such a good choice for a general purpose camera these days. Or is that too "Luddite" a suggestion? ;)

Mark @ Steam Age Pictures - Steam trains on video in aid of railway preservation societies. Latest release: "Mainline 2012, LMS Locomotives", on DVD or Bluray Disc.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

It's a bit Luddite in that the VX/PD range is unequivocally a 4:3 camera range, and although that means that the audience heads at the bottom and the curtain at the top fill the 'unused' frame space, 99% of the recipients of the DVD will be watching it on a 16:9 TV.

You raise very good points about servo control and camera specifications. My article in this month's FVM compares and contrasts the Z1 with the NX5, and my assertion that the NX5 takes two steps forward while taking one step back is true yet disappointing. Reading the spec sheets of the two cameras would make you believe it's a one horse race and that the Z1 would be left floundering in the dust, but in the real run 'n' gun world this patently is not so.

tom.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Steamage wrote:
Are you sure about this? Just because they are adjusted by rings on the lens barrel doesn't necessarily mean that there's no servo between the controller and the moving parts.

Tom is a better person than me to confirm that - it's certainly how I remember it, though I'm more used to an EX or a Z1. (And it's in this respect that the EX is oh so much nicer than the Z1, before we even get on to sensitivity.) I thought I remembered the NX5 being more EX-like, the HMC150 being more Z1 like as far as servo/manual control.

As far as Video Forum goes, good idea, but I wouldn't expect to get any meaningful idea of comparative quality between cameras. How do you know if the *&$£* before you hasn't mis-tweaked some menu setting? What VideoForum is good for is directly comparing cameras for usability, how they feel, what the viewfinder is like etc.