Check out the Sony HVR-A1U

With the right computer both Premier and FCP are fine for editing HD footage.
I prefer FCP but even if you just tossed a coin you will be happy. Based only
on my personal experience I would suggest a new iMac and FCP.

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

As always, the FIRST question should not be "what camera should I get?" but rather, "What do I need a camera for?"

What do you intend to DO with your finished project(s)? Are they for film-outs for theatrical projection? Are they intended for DVD distribution? Are they intended for television broadcast or cable distribution? Are they intended for internet? Or are they merely for your own personal enjoyment?

Your choice of camera to USE should be based on what the final product if FOR. Just buying a random "cheap" camera to shoot "movies" isn't a wise way to make an investment. You list a couple of specific models that "look good" but what is that assessment based on exactly?

And as you've likely noticed, there are many different types of cameras available now with a wide range of formats and quality attached and that list expands and changes frequently. So ask yourself if you NEED to BUY a camera at all? Why not invest the larger pot of money into developing great scripts and just rent the gear you need on an as-needed basis? If you purchase a camera (and sound and lighting and accessories for it all) now, you're locking yourself into ONLY shooting projects that can be served by that specific gear. But by renting gear (or borrowing) as you need it per project, you are freeing your capital (money) up for project development instead of locking it into equipment that will need maintenance and will be obsolete, both in terms of technology AND in terms of what your future projects will need as your desire for higher quality develops.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I have a friend that is starting an amateur production company; itll involve filming on a weekly basis. Ill be filming their rehearsals as well as producing short films for DVD and online distribution. Renting is not an option to be honest. I need to own a camera.

I based my assessment of the Panasonic and Sony on the fact they were the cameras I used for a couple of years in college and am comfortable with them. I have only heard good things about the Panasonic and know that they were used a lot in production (I read they filmed the TV series Arrested Development and movie A Scanner Darkly with the dvx100). When I set out to look for a camera to purchase they seemed like a good choice but because its been a couple of years since I did any filming and things are all HD nowadays then I think Ill to look at different models.

I have just had a quick look online at the Sony HVR-A1U. Looks interesting will check it out more this evening.

Cheers =)

Another option is Panasonic HMC-40.

Many movies were shot on video, especially over last 12 years (since the invention of DV). Keep in mind, though; technology marches on rapidly. What looked amazingly good ten years ago (and was acceptable enough for a movie) would no longer pass muster today. The image quality of the Panasonic I mention (or the Sony suggested by C.I.) is far superior than the high-level professional DV camcorders of ten years ago, costing over $20,000 at the time.

Final Cut Express (most recent version) will work with HD. However, it will NOT do 24p. Premiere Elements, on the other hand, might be able to, with a little help from some third-party presets (some googling required here).

Personally, I have worked on plenty of shows that used these cameras and I was thoroughly unimpressed. Anything larger than a big ass plasma screen and the picture was really lousy. They are like glorified home video cameras. If you want to get a good product you gotta spend something for it. Here we have two RED One 4Ks and we bought them to avoid rentals since we shoot year round. Gotta tell you, even fully decked out, I think we spend about $80,000 total on both, so about 40 a piece. Not bad, now if you are just renting, imagine, just a fraction of that. There are others in the same class I suppose. I just cringe when people propose HDV. Maybe its just me. In the end, the point made already is valid, its about what you are looking to make. My two cents, hope thats not too harsh.?:)?

making low budget dreams come true

quote:

---

Originally posted by ACE Studio

Personally, I have worked on plenty of shows that used these cameras and I was thoroughly unimpressed. Anything larger than a big ass plasma screen and the picture was really lousy.

---

That is no doubt true, but it is still very relative. What exactly is "anything larger than a big plasma screen"? How "lousy" was lousy?

The opposite end of this argument is that there are many commercial feature films that were shot on DV (not HDV, not AVCHD, or AVCCAM, or whatever other flavour of HD compression is out there), but standard-definition DV. As I said before, obviously, technology marches on, and what was great before is no longer that great, but there is no doubt that many of these "prosumer" devices produce image quality that can look very good. I simply cannot imagine that the image quality of a $40k RED 4k device is 15 times better than that of a Panasonic HMC-150. The advantage of RED cameras go beyond just output image quality (whatever is actually meant by that). What I'm saying is, while these cheap cameras present obstacles that require careful planning in order to overcome them, if you know their limitations and work around them, the final result will look remarkably close to what you can get from much better devices.

When I bought my first light kit, I made sure to purchase an ARRI 1K openfaced even though I rarely need the full 1K of light out of it and use a Chimera or scrims to knock it down. With that unit, I almost always have the amount of light I need to shoot with.

However, had I purchased a 650w ONLY, then when I need more light, I wouldn't have it. I can always knock the higher wattage light down, but there is no way to increase the light output of a 650w when I need it.

So, as much as HDV claims to be "just as good as" higher quality formats, it just will never be no matter what a qualified professional does. I can never pour 2 cups into a 1 cup jar and I can never get a high quality image out of an HDV sensor (and lens). It's just not going to happen. Not because I don't want it to or because I don't light well enough, but because the technology has a ceiling that is unsurpassable. I can't tell you how many times I've heard camera guys trying to justify their purchase of a Sony EX camera by claiming that "it looks just as good as an F900." Bullsh**. There's a reason the F900 (body and lens) costs upwards of $100,000 and the EX costs a tiny fraction of that. Do you REALLY think that Sony would sell the same quality camera (the EX) for a tiny fraction of what it sells the F900 for if the results were near identical?

If a camera is cheap, then there's a reason for it. There are compromises made SOMEWHERE, and that "somewhere" is usually in the quality of the image that it being acquired... in the sensor, in the lens, and/or in the basic structure of the camera itself.

So, when I answer people who ask the age-old question "What camera should I buy?" I always ask them what the footage/project is FOR before they even begin trolling through the endless and ever-changing alphabet soup of makes and models. If you want HIGH quality, you're absolutely not going to get it for less than $60,000 (for a camera body only, not including quality lenses). If you are okay with fairly high quality at a decent price, it'll cost between $8,000 and $15,000 dollars. If you only have $8,000 and less to spend, it'll be just okay quality.

Price matters, particularly when it comes to electronics. I'm extremely interested to see the list of "commercial feature films" that were shot on standard DV. If they exist, I haven't personally heard of them. Perhaps some did USE a standard definition DV camera for a specialty shot or two which undoubtedly went through significant manipulation prior to being printed on film for the final cut, but for a "commercial feature film" to be shot entirely on standard definition DV format... it doesn't seem very likely.

Quality costs money. It just does. Which is why I ask, what is the project for? If it MUST be high quality, then that drives the choice of acquisition format. If it does NOT have to be high quality, then a cheaper camera can be used. It's as simple as that. But all too often, newbies and others WANT "high quality" but with only a couple thousand dollars to spend, they HAVE TO settle for a low grade prosumer camera... and then spend time justifying the decision to themselves and others by claiming that their picture is somehow "just as good as" some high quality camera that costs 50x more. Think about it. If a big Hollywood movie COULD use a small cheap camera for a fraction of the price, then why would they spend more on the cameras they DO use?

If you want and need a HIGH quality camera and you can't afford to purchase it, then you have to rent it as you need it (along with the professional personnel who know how to use it). But if you DON'T need that high quality and you don't have a lot of money, then you buy a cheap camera knowing that it is what it is and don't pretend to yourself or anyone else that you've somehow discovered a magic camera that shoots "just as good as IMAX!" for $2,000. Cheap camera = a so-so image. Expensive camera = high quality image. Period.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

The argument that I was making, when I mentioned "commercial features" that were shot on DV, was that these were exactly the exceptions. Features like the notorious "Blair Witch", then "Open Water", "28 Days Later" and similar, may have been shot in DV back then, but I doubt that any producer or distributor would really consider them acceptable if they were shot that way today. The number of features shot on HDV is a bit higher, but the same reasoning applies.

As for the argument regarding buying/renting professional equipment in order to obtain professional results, I'm not so sure such advice would work well for people with little experience.

My daughter has been playing the violin for the past 5 years. She is getting rather good for her age (she's 10 now), but from an objective point of view, she is still more-or-less a beginner. The violin she's learning on cost me $100. It is a fairly decent instrument for that price, but can never compare with the instrument of her teacher (say, $4,000), let alone the $300,000 17th century Guarneri del Gesù. There was no point for me to get my daughter anything better than the $100 violin, though, since it would have likely been wasted on her current skill set.

There is only so much a person with little experience and skill can do with a $80k Cinealta or Thomson Viper. The ultimate result wouldn't be significantly more valuable than if it were shot with a $3,000 device. It would likely only look a bit better (and that is only assuming the person actually knew how to obtain optimal results from the camera).

I appreciate all the feedback in the thread. As I mentioned the first problem Id been having was deciding whether get a prosumer DV camera or HD camera. Eventually I hope to have a budget of 1500-2000 GBP when Ive finished saving and thought it would be quite easy to decided on a purchase. I was wrong.

At first I felt a bit like a King Canute type figure shaking my fist at the current wave of technology. As Id had my heart set on the certain cameras and because Id been out the loop for a while when I came back to see it had all changed and the model of camera I thought was really good wasnt that good anymore I was a bit gutted. HD had made everything really good and really bad (from my perspective anyway).

And the as I began to look into it I started to saw all the fuss about DSLRs and that just made it even more confusing. Apparently they give amazing footage but are quite tricky to use from what I can make out. Double edge swords cut me up.

As for editing, I think Ill get Premier and use my PC. The tutors at college had drummed it into us macs and FCP were industry standard that we should use them so I ended up getting a cheap mac and FCE 2 as thats all I could afford. Transferring files from the mac to my pc was a chore.?xx(?