choosind the right camera

Quote

Asking a bunch of editors for CAMERA recommendations is silly. There are camera forums for this stuff.

Amen...and SHOOT advice to boot. Best advice is to go where the advice is more precise:

[fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >www.google.com]

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Thanks, Shane. Ok, so you were joking a little. Alright, you don't know about cameras to the extent of recommending one for the four purposes I indicated.

And, thanks for that article, Joey. I read it. There were also so many ads for interesting cameras. You know, like most of you, I get a lot of magazines that describe cameras and editing gear. It's really a huge arena.

When someone posts a thread like this: choosing the right camera, I get interested because someone might have bought a certain camera that he or she can recommend, and that is saves so much time and effort in reading magazines for months (and there are literally thousands of cameras coming out every month).

I guess the questions will go unanswered ... because there is no easy answer; it's too complicated ... and out of scope of this website, because this is a site for editors only. Well, it's not my place to say that either; it's what I'm given to believe.

Thanks again for the help that was offered so far. There were some nuggets here and there.

Quote

When someone posts a thread like this: choosing the right camera, I get interested because someone might have bought a certain camera that he or she can recommend, and that is saves so much time and effort in reading magazines for months

Soooooo...what you are saying is that when someone posts on this forum, you tend to follow their advice as Gospel instead of a professional shooter's / writer's advice? You have your priorities messed up. You wouldn't go to a Camera Forum to get good compression advice, would you? I guess you would

I can't say this enough...this is the WRONG FORUM for posting "which camera should I buy" if you are serious about shooting your own content. Most of us here (MOST of us...not ALL) are Post Production Professionals - that means we get the footage AFTER IT HAS BEEN SHOT. You will get some solid opinions and some hobby-related ones as some of us actually used some cameras and have seen a ton of footage from these things, but ON-SET WORKFLOWS? Very few of us actually shoot our own content. A recommendation or endorsement on this website for a camera is most definitely nothing to base the success or failure of your company over.

If it were up to me (and it is definitely not), I would have a "What Camera to buy" forum with shooter-only or Shooter / Editor Moderators in it. You want to good bread, ask a baker. Camera purchasing threads waste a lot of time and space in the Cafe, IMHO.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Thanks, Joey, for clarifying that most people on LAFCPUG are editors.
Digital camera footage requires being compatible with editing programs, and this is why I pursued this thread (started here by someone else) regarding choosing the right camera.

It has been remarked here: what are you trying to do with this camera? That's when I thought I'd better ask about a camera that shoots progressive for web export, and I fell for the funny comment that Shane made regarding shooting his podcast with an iPhone. Apparently he did, and I do believe that the iPhone shoots progressive 30fps.

I've actually spent a few hours today researching cameras on the web. The best recommendation I found for a "Youtube" camera was dated 2007! So there isn't much out there, Joey. It's frustrating.

Now, I know in an earlier thread you talked about a camera you recently picked up and you were excited about its potential to shoot 1920x1080 (that's what I seem to remember). So I was hoping you'd say something about that camera's potential to shoot progressive footage that would be suitable for the web.

Also, in another thread I read that Derek also used that camera and didn't seem to like it. I didn't comment on either thread because as I remember neither thread was about choice of cameras; these were tangential remarks.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Do a forum search, GOOGLE, and other search tools at your disposal. You will find plenty of tech specs on that camera and it's shooting specs. There is absolutely no need to re-write these specs as they already exist in a forum thread.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I asked many sellers and manufacturers of cameras the same question that this thread asked for -- this was at the present DV Expo in Pasadena that is taking place today and tomorrow -- and there was not much to go on as far as which camera is suitable for what.

It seems to me that filmmakers are returning to 35mm motion picture for acquisition and using the digital media for editing and conforming back to film when it comes to releasing 35mm prints.

Even for the web it seems that is better to shoot in film and edit in digital and export to digital of course. See this video from Kodak:

[motion.kodak.com]

That is why it was so hard to answer the question of this thread; there is no consensus among even camcorder sales people. It's not just editors ...

Why don't you tell us your budget on your last HDV project, and translate that amount to film cost.



www.strypesinpost.com

hahah the guys in the "video" don't look convinced - in fact they look very much like they are talking from a script!

They fact is that HD IS faster for much of the shooting-set up and post process, but as for the cheaper aspect, it depends if you compare like-for-like rather than say have over-the-top backup systems and multiple HD cameras.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Quote
strypes
Why don't you tell us your budget on your last HDV project, and translate that amount to film cost

Ok, you got me there. LOL. The RED QUEEN is a perfect example of a feature film that should be shot digitally, and I did -- shamelessly But I had to pay a price of course > can't screen it in 35mm. ... So the money I saved on shooting it on HDV tape was spent on learning FCP and exporting a DVD (just barely) -- it took me too years! Time is money, right?

But the nature of the project was such that .... Well, I didn't work from a script; I'd never do that with 35mm (I'm not crazy ... or rich, like Howard Hughes shooting Blue Angel a second time because someone said during screening rushes, "It's going to look great when we lay in the sound effects." Mr. Hughes -- who owned RKO -- didn't know that the movie was shot MOS. He didn't know what that meant. So he said, "Let's do it over and this time I want a Nagras in every plane."

Quote
Ben
They fact is that HD IS faster for much of the shooting-set up and post process, but as for the cheaper aspect, it depends if you compare like-for-like rather than say have over-the-top backup systems and multiple HD cameras.

So it ends up costing more, no?

There is less discipline directing, shooting, acting -- down the line....

Given the opportunity to direct a major movie, would you choose digital?

Don't rush to answer that; I'm just going to ask you, "Why?" (like the guy in the video clip from Kodak.)

Good to hear from you, by the way, Ben. Hope you're having fun

Well if you hire bad actors and bad professional to shoot then of course there is less discipline, but thats not the equipment thats the cast and crew.

I watched District 9 and not for one moment did I think about the fact it was shot on Red.

Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on the Grass Valley Viper.

Star Wars 1,2 and 3 (ok bad acting) [Yoda voice] on the CineAlta HDCAMs but not concerned with the image was I...

Hell I could name 100s of movies that either were entirely shot or partly shot on digital and if you didn't know otherwise you wouldn't say.

My point is that film is great yes - but if you want to shoot film then do, if you want to shoot HD from a cost or ease of use POV then do - in either case making sure you get capable and experienced professionals if you want it to look good and the work-flow to well... flow.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Those are strong arguments. Ok, so digital is getting used more and more. I guess I'm somewhat in denial; but also as a means of self-preservation: I sell 35mm short ends

But what I meant about bad directing, bad acting and bad camerawork -- it's the the digital medium practices themselves that foster the breakdown of century-old skills. In fact, I admonish young filmmakers (and keep reminding myself) that while shooting digital we should not lose sight of the discipline of making good movies.

And by that I mean we should not overshoot just because digital is cheap (like you said multiple cameras, as one example of going nuts with coverage.) We should rehearse more and shoot and not shoot the rehearsals as a matter of course. Etc, I'm sure you agree.

I wrote a long rant, but screw it. All I'm going to say is this: The opening hotel room scene in "Apocalypse Now."

"Filmmaking discipline" can go straight to hell. Every part of the process that gets between the viewer and some essential truth about the human condition is an obstacle to be worked around.

I truly believe that I own the best camera for the price and for the work I do.

CANON HV20
CANON HX A1
SONY FX1 (I am selling it now because I no longer have use for it)
PANASONIC HVX200

God Bless,

Douglas Villalba
director/cinematographer/editor
Miami, Florida

[www.DouglasVillalba.info]
[www.youtube.com]
[vimeo.com]

Thank you, Douglas, for getting back on topic.

This was beginning to look like another all 2 familiar "Film Rules / Digital Sux" soapbox.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Quote
Jeff
"Filmmaking discipline" can go straight to hell. Every part of the process that gets between the viewer and some essential truth about the human condition is an obstacle to be worked around.

So now the truth comes out. I always wondered where you're coming from

So we don't need the directors and the rest of the crew anymore, just the actor and the editor.LOL The actor does a little karate dance and smashes his fist into the mirror (ouch, he cuts himself for real) and that's supposed to tell the whole story of the Vietnam War. And since Mr. Sheen came up with all that BS himself, well, it wasn't Mr. Coppola directing either. Some editor said, "Wow, that's cool, man!"

It's really tragic in that Martin Sheen even ended up having a heart attach over the whole pretentious BS of a movie -- although beautifully shot by Vittorio Storaro and creatively edited by whoever. The film will endure because of its madness and not its historical accuaracy; but who the hell cares about historical accuracy; we're filmmakers!

You shoulda ranted, Jeff.LOL

and, yes, I concur: thanks Douglas for answering the original question of this thread: "choosing the camera."

it's worth looking at those cameras.

i can now do some research and see if they will do the same for me as they did for you. By the way what are you selling our FX 1 for? Will you put it on eBay?

> But what I meant about bad directing, bad acting and bad camerawork -- it's the the digital
> medium practices themselves that foster the breakdown of century-old skills.

And somebody shooting in 35mm film never makes those mistakes. Sure. Cow manure doubles nicely for marijuana, too.


www.derekmok.com

Quote

By the way what are you selling our FX 1 for? Will you put it on eBay?

That's what PM's are for vic (Private Messages)...so as not to steer a thread into another direction. Please take your off topic stuff to PM's with people. If Doug's camera does go up for sale, he can list it in the LAFCPUG Market and not in the Cafe.

Thank you.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

>Given the opportunity to direct a major movie, would you choose digital?

I'm not a film director, nor am I claiming to be, so a large part of what I say could be moot.

For me, it totally depends on the budget. If I had unlimited supply of time and money (and that includes having the best actors that money can buy for an unlimited amount of time including reshoots), yes, let the Arris roll on 12 camera angles including a crane and a helicopter.

On deciding beetween the acquisition format(s), if shooting 35mm (or HD, for that matter), hinders the ability to tell the story (if I have to cut necessary camera angles or shoot dates or editing timeframe, to balance the books), I'd go on which ever format that can provide the look and style of the piece to ultimately deliver the story.

But the main point being that you never overlook the story, or the hiring of good professionals, simply because it is cheaper otherwise or that working on a format prevents you from doing so.

The truth is that the cost of working with both film and digital formats are scalable. With film, the case is probably less so on the extreme bottom end.

>The RED QUEEN is a perfect example of a feature film that should be shot digitally, and I did --
>shamelessly

The fact that you are able to use the two terms "HDV" and "digital acquisition" almost interchangeably, worries me. Have you ever used the two analog terms "VHS" and "35mm" as interchangeably as you would with digital formats? If you are able to do so, I am sure you will be able to more than double your production time when working with analog film formats.



www.strypesinpost.com