any camcorder under 1500 is going to look like total garbage on a tv screen much less a movie screen. Hell, i have a 1500 camcorder and it still looks like garbage. If you have to go cheap, try to find a cheap HD cam, at least it wont look so bad after compression.

It?s not the camera. It?s how it?s used.

Excellent lighting can make the image look great. With any camera.
I?ve seen some great work shot on the Elura. And I?ve seen some
bad looking video on $8,000 cameras, too.

Neither the Elura or the ZR800 has a mic input. If you are looking
for a Canon camera the HV20 and HV30 do. So does the Sony HC1000.
The JVC MG505 is a HDD camera with a mic input. I recommend the
JVC HD7.

Unfortunately you?re just not going to find a camera with a mic
input in the under $500 range.

Check out these threads:
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6195
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6316
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4527
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4479
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4183
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4555
http://www.filmmaking.net/fnetforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4586

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

The last guy gave excellent advice, it's not always the camera that makes the film look good, it's the time it takes to light it, I'd add to that, it's the time it takes to set the shot up period: work with the actors first, make sure they know where they should be/say/ACT. Block the whole scene, make sure that the camera person knows where he/she should be.

Take your time with the shot, ask everyone if they are happy with the take, including the actors/camera person.

Good luck with your project.

Terry Dray
www.filmingfolk.com
UK Resource & Network for Film & Television Makers

Great lighting wont make a fuzzy image look any less fuzzy, nor will it remove DV artifacts. I was idealistic like these folks until i actually got into using differing grades of DV cams and speilberg himself couldnt make DV look like anything but DV.

However, great lighting will give even DV more depth
than no lighting and using the focus will keep the
picture sharp. I agree that Speilberg couldn't make DV
look like anything but DV but Nancy Schreiber, Tami
Reiker, Jim Denault, Peter Andrews, Yron Levy, Anthony
Mantle and Patrick A. Stewart all have.

It's not idealism, it's talent, experience and hard work.

Most filmmakers are under the impression that DV is easier than film when it comes to lighting, but in fact it can be quite the opposite. In my humble opinion lighting DV takes more effort to try and replicate the colors, the look, the tone of film. It is a tricky animal to keep from blowing things out. Lighting is probably priority number one in regards to how DV will look.

Kess is right. Lighting is the most important thing when using a low priced camera. You can make DV look just as good or in some cases better than film, but you'd better be ready to put in some work. It could turn hours of editing into days. If you don't have the money to by a $1500 camera now, invest in some lights for around $100 or less if you can find them. They'll come in handy when you can afford the better camera.

"Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

It?s not the camera. It?s how it?s used.

Excellent lighting can make the image look great. With any camera.
I?ve seen some great work shot on the Elura. And I?ve seen some
bad looking video on $8,000 cameras, too.

---

good point ?:)?

The main thing is to focus on a great story, actors and directors. If u cant afford a good camera, use any cheap one u can find. Im just using my minidv cam at the moment at am very confident with it.

If u have a crap script and lack talent, the best camera in the world wouldnt help u. Good luck