Which is the best High-End DV cam to buy?

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:21 pm

I'm looking around and doing a little research on High-End MiniDV cams.

Which is the best to get, I need something with: An LCD + Viewfinder, 3 CCD, Manual Focus, White Balance, Exposure, good Optical Zoom, easy learning curve.

The only 2 cameras which I know that fit that description are the CanonGL2 and the Sony DCR-VX2100

Which should I go for?

What is Handycam by the way, just a Sony-Only term?

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:08 pm

Also, if it comes to the push, and I have to get a consumer MiniDV Cam, which 1CCD Cam with manual-everything is recommended?

Hopefully I'll just be able to use my SVHS-C Cam till I get the money to get a high-end one, When I bought this cam I had knew nothing about cameras and now that I know more, it seems like a great buy.

18X Optical Zoom
Manual/Auto Focus
Manual/Auto Exposure
Manual/Auto/Preset (Fine, Cloud, Halogen) White Balance
Stabalizer
Time Lapse
SVHS-ET (SVHS Simulation on a VHS-C cassette)
S.LX, Max and Normal
Widescreen (fake)
1/2000 High Speed Shutter
Sports Shutter Speed
ND Effect
Fog
Twilight filter
Audio Dubbing
Manual/Auto Tracking
Backlight Compensation

Not bad for a first buy, hey?

BrownCowStudios · Post by **BrownCowStudios** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:18 pm

Those are by far not the only cameras with those features. Every 3CCD camera fits those specs, except, the LCD, which is not on all cams.

Yes, Handycam is a Sony term (probably trademarked too).

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:00 pm

I think it's going to be split up between a Sony DCR-VX2100 or the GL-2

Which is better?

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:06 pm

The vx-2100 has much better low light shooting capabilities than the GL-2. When I was looking to purchase a 3CCD cam these were the same two I came up with. Had the oppotunity to shoot botha vx-2000 and a GL-2 for a couple of hours to do some camparisons. The low light capability and the feel of the controls were the two biggest factors in picking the 2100. Also the VX has 1/3 inch ccd , the GL-2 has 1/4 inch CCDs.
I also felt the Sony had slightly warmer , deeper color saturation than the GL-2. Both are good cameras, but I just preferred the feel of the Sony, and the low light quality was what turned the corner on my decision.

pdj · Post by **pdj** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:45 pm

I've spoken/heard from a few cameramen and editors in the TV industry who all say that SONY is the best in digital cameras- take that for what its worth.

hanasand · Post by **hanasand** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:14 pm

Sony is better for television productions while the GL-2 is better for film-productions because of it's 25p capabilities. When mentioning the saturation differences these are all things that easily can be adjusted in post.

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:18 pm

!!!

Now I'm torn... I'm going to be using the camera for film-making obviously... So the GL-2 is good for that, but everyone says overall the Sony is better. Which to get? One thing that would make me sway in GL-2's favour is the fact that the presentation for it on the Canon webpage is so good. Interactive videos etc.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:53 pm

Don't let sales BS sway you in the purchase, look at the specs. After all what does a flashy commercial have to do with the purchase

. Kinda like buying a specific car because a good looking blonde is driving it an ad. pulldown
And hanasand, the whole concept of fix it in post is the bane of professionals everywhere. Most Pros take that line to mean " It doesn't matter if I shoot s**t video or not I can fake it" which is all you can do in post. You can increase the appearance of saturation but you can not add data that is not there in the source footage, only manipulate the data that is available. You can manipulate the source data with color correction, shifting the exisitng data, but when you manipulate saturation you can also increase pixelation.
It's also a pretty simple process in Premiere pro to create 24p video. Simply apply the posterize time effect to your regular 60 field ( NTSC) video and lock it down to 24 fps then render, voila, instant film look. Haven't tried this by first deinterlacing the source, but it may not look quite as good.
Unless you are planning to transfer to film, on a TV you will generally get a better look if the video is still interlaced and the frame rate stepped down. Unless your DVD player handles progressive scanned streams
you will see some ghosting playing progressive video when interlaced is expected....
The SOny will also shoot in progressive but it is 15p, which again can be bumped, but then we get back to creating data that is not there, which is generally a no-no.
In short, anything you are going to do in post should only be to enhance the data available in the source, not attempting to create new data to fill in. It's much better to change the format of the source on render ( frame rate)than it is to try to increase saturation or other pixel level manipulation.

hanasand · Post by **hanasand** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:32 pm

Raptor: Yeah sure you can loose quality in post, but I'm not talking about f*** raping the footage to pieces. Small adjustements wont even be noticable. This thing you are talking about to make 24p (which is lame, use 25p) in premiere pro makes you loose half the quality vertically and is therefore not preferable. My choice would be the GL-2, espescially now that it has better sound options as well.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:46 pm

The manual sound adjustment is about the same as the vx2000/2100 has available, It's still an unbalanced input, so not a lot of gain there. If you want film look why not go to 24p film is 24 fps. If you use the posterize time to lock the frame rate to 24fps, and then field render the video at it's existing 60i, there is no loss of vertical, using posterize time is different than deinterlacing the 60i then changing the frame rate in the render. I found more function in the vx2100, the big diff for me was the increased low light sensitivity of the Sony. The diff between 1 lux and 6 lux may bot sound like much, but the Sony had great images at +9db with very little noise, to get equivalent images with the canon I had to crank it to +18db and picked up a lot of grain. The 25P is on the PAL version of the GL-2, the NTSC version is 30P which is still to high a frame rate for film. Like I said, the two biggest differences is the progressive mode on the canon is at a higher frame rate than the sony, but the sony responds better under low light, and seems to maintain it's saturation better. Both have pretty decent manual audio controls, I liked the placement of the some of the sony controls better, but that is strictly a personal preference. Other than the above all features are the same. Looked at the Sony site to see what the frame and case of the GL2 were, had heard it was plastic cased but can't confirm it, and didn't want to scratch the finish of the one I was tesating to find out LOL, I do know the Sony is magnesium frame and magnesium case exceptfor the LCD back and some trim pieces...

hanasand · Post by **hanasand** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:30 pm

Just to explain my hatred agains 24p that filmlook wannabes want, this is just dumbarse because your tv can't show anything but PAL or NTSC anyways, meaning 25p(very few can actually show true progressive though) 50i and the same for NTSC. When you see a DVD-PAL on your TV the framerate isn't even 24p there, even though shot on film. The reason? The television set won't be able to show 24 fps so they've speeded it up by like 4% to fit 25p format. Therefore: 24p is useless... Unless you plan to convert it to film and neeever reconvert back to any digital format meant for tv, which is a quite rare happening. Refering to Sony's 12,5/15p it is to low a framerate for it to feel like film and therefore just choppy and weird. But hey, different opininons is allright.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:54 pm

Exactly what I was saying above

24P is only good if going to film, NTSC is 29.97 fps or 60i. The whole concept of 'film look' is definitely wasted when playing back on a TV LOL. and Progressive scanning is only useful if the DVD player supports it.

Twabi2 · Post by **Twabi2** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:44 pm

would I do a good deal buying a Sony DCR-TRV950 camera for 2000Ã¢â€šÂ¬?
I think it's a pretty good camera.
I heard it's hard to learn to use it, but I'm willing to spend some time :p

hanasand · Post by **hanasand** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:21 pm

Raptor wrote:...and Progressive scanning is only useful if the DVD player supports it...

It's more common for the DVD player to support it than the TV. But even without these features you still get sort of a film feel to it, because the framerate will be the same as the one you see on your dvd's and stuff..

Jass Films · Post by **Jass Films** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:48 am

The best are the SONY's and the Canon's. SONY's are the most expensive, but they were the ones who invented digital cameras so they should be the leaders. Canon are much cheaper and are just as good in my oppinion. So either of them are perfect.

BrownCowStudios · Post by **BrownCowStudios** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:16 am

Yeah, I'm sure you'll be fine with either. I can't help but support Canon though, as they specialize in cameras and camcorders, whereas other companies (Sont, JVC, Panasonic) manufacture a wide line of electronics.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:11 am

and printers and faxes and calculators and industrial motors and scanners and photocopiers.. a lot more to canon than cameras

BrownCowStudios · Post by **BrownCowStudios** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:21 am

Err... yeah... typo

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:46 am

Twabi2 wrote:would I do a good deal buying a Sony DCR-TRV950 camera for 2000Ã¢â€šÂ¬?
I think it's a pretty good camera.
I heard it's hard to learn to use it, but I'm willing to spend some time :p

No TRVs are hard to learn! lol That is your standard consumer camcorder. Maybe try looking for a pro grade camcorder? 3ccds will improve your picture quality a lot. Actually, they have come out with single ccd professional cams which have higher resolution than 3ccd cams. Bloody expensive though!

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:24 pm

The TRV-950 is a 3ccd cam and is basically a stripped down version of the vx2000 with a consumer lens, body and viewfinder and missing a some of the control options and smaller CCDs. Generally it is the consumerized VX2000/2100. Low light pickup isn't as good, closer to the Canon GL-2 than the VX series.

Twabi2 · Post by **Twabi2** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:10 pm

well, I want a good camera for about max. 2000Ã¢â€šÂ¬
the TRV-950 comes near, has 3ccd, and looks good
maybe an alternative?

Themovieman44 · Post by **Themovieman44** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:55 pm

From what I hear the GL2 and the VX2100 are the top of line best you can buy within an amatuer filmmakers budget/

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:19 pm

Well some would say the PD-170 and XL1, but other than some audio stuff ( and in the case of PD-170 shooting DVCAM not much of an improvement LOL) I don't think either is worth the price diff, tho I'm sure the XL1 shooters will vehemently disagree LOL

hanasand · Post by **hanasand** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:14 pm

They will argue that de-tatchable optics gains alot as being able to get exactly the look you want in a scene.