Cheap miniDV cameras?

[thedude]

The biggest advantages to cameras like the XL1 and GL1 (and why they are more expensive) is that they use 3 CCDs as opposed to one CCD like the DCR-TRV33 and other sub-$1000 DV cameras.

Essentially it means you have a CCD dedicated to each of the R, G and B color channels, which in the end produces an image with a lot more color saturation and that looks more 'pro'.

Of course since the image coming to those CCDs has been split 3 ways by a prism, it means that each CCD is getting 1/3 the light. As a result you will often need additional lighting when in a studio environment to compensate in order to produce good results and avoid noise and grain that often occur when brightness has been artificially boosted in the camera.

Of course there are other issues that arise when working with material that has been compressed to 4:1:1 like DV, especially when doing keying. This website explains the problem very well.

http://www.neopics.com/bluescreen/

[epatnor]

Thanks dude :p for your reply,

Obviously the more expensive cams will produce more accurate and workable images, but I find this intriguing - is it possible to use a small cheap cam for this kind of work? Now, I don't mean for broadcast production quality, but actually - at all???

You mentioned that there are issues doing keying in regard to the 4:1:1 sampling rates of DV. Oh boy! That, I guess, brings us to the next obstacle - in europe we use PAL standard DV cameras. And you know what that means! 4:2:0 sampling!

As I understand it, this is even more degradeable than doing multigeneration work in 4:1:1. Ouch... Any insights?

Is there still hope? (I am reading that bluescreen site material right now :) )

[Jayk2k]

I think for the average user, a camera is going to be able to allow you to at least get footage you need. It may not be perfect, or prestine, but you know what, in the real world, it hardly ever is anyways.. Might as well learn how to deal with it now. Not too many schools have HD 4:4:4 cameras or 35mm cameras and scanners at their disposal, so until you get into real production, chances are you won't see perfect material.

There are also ways of upsampling the 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 data, to help with your work. Agian, if you are just wishing to learn, then go for it.

Most importantly you will be able to learn which elements you need, and how to combine them.

[X3M]

Go for it… I had seen some people do magic with DV footage. If you will be able to deal with the worst the extra luxury in the real world of using all the fancy and expensive equipment will make it piece of cake to do your job.

[epatnor]

Thanks guys, I guess you're right. If the goal right from the start was just to buy a camera for testing purposes, then it doesn't really matter how good or advanced it is. I'll learn anyways, maybe better! ;)

But the question was more of a technical nature. If I'm going to learn compositing skills using C2 for example, and spend about 1000$ on a cam, which one would be my best bet?

Am I right in thinking like this:

For 1000 bucks, get:

1. As many pixels as possible (more "possibilities" in comping)
2. As good a lens as possible with option to attach extensions
3. As many in- and outputs as possible
4. The sampling is bound to be the same (4:2:0/4:1:1) as all other cams up to and above 6000$ (DVCPRO, D-9 etc., 4:2:2). Actually, BetacamSP is 4:1:1 if I remember correctly, and I know a lot of comping is still done with material from that system!

But I guess it takes a really experienced guy to answer: what other different features in my price range could produce a better result in the production environment mentioned above? Not that you're not experienced, boys! :D

The reason I'm rambling on about the sampling is that it seems it's important, not only for multigeneration work, but actually for bluescreen work! I think some other thread discussed "blockiness" and jagged edges of the matte?

Better sampling = cleaner key?

I don't know, I guess I'm trying to find out if there is some of the cheapo cams that is better at this than others, knowing they have the same sucky sampling (basically). But maybe one has better silicon than the others, maybe better algorithms when interpreting the imagery, or just better lens?

What's my optimum bet for my thousand pistols?!?

Thanks again (maybe we can start a new thread after this: "Cheapest way to build your own post facility - find the equipment and learn the tricks to make it look good, without having to sell your house!")

[epatnor]

Hey, that Canon Optura Xi seems like a really good cam for the deal!

Zebra pattern, manual controls of audio and focus, 2 Mpixel, RGB Primary Color Filter (whatever that is, seems to enhance the color sampling "just like a 3-CCD camera", well, hmmm), but lotsa features!

Guess it´s a tad above my target price range, but maybe in a few months...?!

Most quality for the buck? Any experience?

[vfx]

Ugggh, this is such an overlooked subject. I mean I'm doin comps with a 1 ccd dv cam, and well the quality just aint up to what I see in the professional realm. How does this affect ur showreel, when the pros use the best and then they see ur noisy fllic?

Just out of curiousity, I shot some film with a d v panasonic, and also took some stills of the same angle with a olympus digital cam 3 mega pixels and well the video cam just looked shit! Noisy and unclear - whereas the stills looked glossy and loveeely so why cant they make video cams with the quality of digital still cams is what i'm gettin at?!?

[marchermann]

I had the same problem a few months ago. I wanted a camera for filming some snowboard action but also to learn compositing. read tons of reviews (www.camcorderinfo.com, www.simplydv.co.uk) and eventually bought a Sony TRV60 which was about 1100 Euro. The nice thing about it: It has a mode for progessive recording, i.e. full frames instead of interlaced which is quite nice for compositing or working with still frames. Definitely something to have a look at.

Sure, qualitywise you can always do better, but at the moment it's just for personal training and maybe publishing some stuff for web streaming.

Maybe this helped a bit.

Marc

[X3M]

vfx, the image from your digital camera looks better but it takes a lot longer to record it. You don't want to shoot your video at 2 frames per minute or something like that. Another things are bandwidth, cost to make it, light sensitivity, etc. They already have cameras as you specified the problem is the price of it. The best camera at this point, I think is capable of capturing 2K frames uncompressed at up to 60 frames per second. The bad news is it cost around half a million dollars. I am currently using Panasonic DVX-100 24p, it is still not as good as what they use in studios but it dos its job. If you can wait and save little bit more of money I would try to get at list Canon GL-2. If your goal is special effects, look for something with progressive scan. It helps a lot. Every thing else on top of the standard features that come with all DV cameras are bonus. 3CCD is nice to have but if it is out of your price range get at list something with progressive scan.

[beaker]

Originally posted by vfx
Just out of curiousity, I shot some film with a d v panasonic, and also took some stills of the same angle with a olympus digital cam 3 mega pixels and well the video cam just looked shit! Noisy and unclear - whereas the stills looked glossy and loveeely so why cant they make video cams with the quality of digital still cams is what i'm gettin at?!?
They do have them, they are called HDCAM's. They shoot at 1920x1080. Trouble is they aren't in the price range for a consumer yet(probably wont be for another 5 years or so).

[epatnor]

Originally posted by vfx
Ugggh, this is such an overlooked subject. I mean I'm doin comps with a 1 ccd dv cam, and well the quality just aint up to what I see in the professional realm. How does this affect ur showreel, when the pros use the best and then they see ur noisy fllic?

Exactly! What I'M getting at, is that there must be things we can do to minimize the "lousiness" of our garage productions, even within a low budget.

I'm thinking 2 things:

1) Choose the cam in my price range that has the biggest potential not to cause too much problems in different (lowend) post/editing situations - jaggies and artifacts and such. I'm sure that the difference between the cams aren't that big, but maybe there is small but actually important features that would actually help! Hence - I'm picky about this, since I haven't bought the damn thing yet! That's why I'm in great need of expert advice about this particular situation (cheap cam/bluescreen work/lowend post).

2) Learn tricks and workarounds that, regardless of how shitty the cam is compared to higher end cameras, provides the possibility to produce a result which will make people say: "Hey, that's not too bad! Nice comp... Is that really done with DV material!?"

Don´t you think that there is A LOT of people starting out in composition that share these thoughts?

[marchermann]

Originally posted by vfx
How does this affect ur showreel, when the pros use the best and then they see ur noisy fllic?
I do not think that the pros will judge a demo reel on the basis of the quality of the input material. You can show an understanding for framing the shots, for compositing the elements etc. even when you only have a Hi8 camera. Demo reels are about showing off your skills, not your equipment. You can even show a certain skill in making CG-elements look like DV and have them thus blend in perfectly.

Camerawise I think that cameras around the 1400$ mark (Canon MVX3i, Panasonic MX500) will be fine for many applications. Even lower priced cameras like the Canon Optura20/MVX150i produce very good pictures.

Marc

[epatnor]

Hey boys!

Well, speaking of low end cameras in bluescreen application, which specific features could ultimately be useful?

I mean, although very similar, these cameras must have differences that make them stand out, making one more useful than the other.

I think I can list some features that would NOT be needed:

1) Great still capabilities - totally irrelevant as I would use a digital still camera

2) Zebra patterns - in a bluescreen studio, I'm not sure that this is very important

3) Web streaming, MPEG4 etc - bla bla bla

4) Some other gadget that would just cost money, I'm sure there is one

Essentially, what's needed is a non-crap lens, a non-crap CCD (or 3), non-crap distribution and encoding to tape, and lots of inputs and outputs! That's all!

So. Around $1000, which features would be a must have? I know this is tricky, as they are all alike!

[epatnor]

Again, in regard to vfx's comment, this is important to minimize the problems one might have in comp, using a cheap camera while doing a reel.

But then again! Of course the one looking at the flic will be more impressed if they learn that the movie was done using a simple small DV camera. I actually like the challenge! There is a lot of tricks out there...

On the other hand, of course one might want the reel to look it's best, thus choose the best camera for the job.

[epatnor]

Well I'm just rambling... I'm gonna get out of your hair and buy one soon :)

Actually, the Panny PV-DV953 seems really nice... Ok so it's $1500, but maybe it's worth it.

Any experience with the DV953, anyone?

[marchermann]

Is that the MX500 in Europe? After reading lots of great reviews about it on the web, I almost bought it, but then decided that I wanted progressive scan recording and I don't know about now, but at the time in that price range only the Sonys TRV60/80 could do that. But I suggest you have a look at the sites I mentioned earlier and then try out your favourites.

And I tell you what: Having a camera is so much nicer than thinking about which one is best ;) Ooh, I so know what you're going through.

Marc

[xzevlin]

Originally posted by epatnor

Any experience with the DV953, anyone?

I was looking into some reviews of it last week (at cnet.com I think) and came to the conclusion that it probably isn't worth the money. It has 3CCDs, but they are 1/6" and apparently the colour isn't much better than the 1CCD cameras around the same price.

Here's a review that's pretty in depth and fairly positive (other than the complaint about the performance in low light)

http://www.dvspot.com/reviews/panasonic/pv_dv953-review/index.shtml

[plug3]

You guys should look at the JVC GR3000. You can find it for $600-$700. It's a 1 CCD but it is 1/3.6 " which is pretty huge (great pictures). It also has a D-wide mode which emulates what progressive scan does (it's not the real thing but does a good job at removing the typical DV interlace/jaggies).

Check www.DV.com for reviews (and colorful debates about the d-wide mode :-)

[beaker]

Originally posted by xzevlin
I was looking into some reviews of it last week (at cnet.com I think) and came to the conclusion that it probably isn't worth the money. It has 3CCDs, but they are 1/6" and apparently the colour isn't much better than the 1CCD cameras around the same price.

Here's a review that's pretty in depth and fairly positive (other than the complaint about the performance in low light)

http://www.dvspot.com/reviews/panasonic/pv_dv953-review/index.shtml

Damn, 1/6", thats pretty small. People complain about the XL1 only having a 1/4" ccd.

[marchermann]

I forgot to mention one more thing about the TRV60 that made it interesting for me: "true" wide screen. It uses additional pixels on the ccd which makes for better pictures than with the ordinary crop and stretch or letterbox method. Doesn't work with progressive recording though.

Marc

[epatnor]

Right! Thanks marcboy! It is the Panasonic NV-MX500 in Europe... no wonder I could'nt find it here! It's about 1600-1700$ here

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.