Simple answer... tape.

MiniDV tape that is. Avoid DVD and HDD based formats at all costs. Recording DV or if you want, HDV to miniDV tape is still the most superior recording formatt for consumer level and indipendant film useage

However, with a much, much bigger budget, i would go with XD-CAM, which are Bluray Discs in cartidges which can record SD in uncompresed DV and HD in MPEG (good MPEG though, not the youtube shit that you get from cheap DVD cameras and HDD cameras).

Tim Ellis
Post Production Editor
paradox.ct?gmail.com

I agree. Tape.

Sure, you'll have to pay for something extra - miniDV tapes are
about $6 so on a feature you'll spend between $100 and $200, on
a short maybe $12 to $24.

Sure, you'll have to switch tapes. Not every 15 minutes, but you
will have to do it. AND keep track of them, log the footage and
then transfer to the HD. All a very minor inconvenience compared
to other aspects of making a movie.

Sometimes going for the longest lasting or even the most
affordable method will (as you put it) bite you in the ass later.
My advice is to bite the bullet and do what tens of thousands of
movie makers have done before you. Spend the extra $25 per short
and record to tape. Take the extra 5 minutes per tape to switch
them out. And take the few hours to transfer to your HD.

You are going to discover that all that hassle is going to be very
minor in the long run. Just wait until you try lighting and
getting great sound...

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

$20000 camera? jesus christ. For that much i might as well go ahead and use film.

So all <$2000 cameras are camcorders? there arent any that look like real pro-level cameras (big ones)?

Sorry poof, but there is no $2,000 camera that will give you the
same quality as a $20,000 camera. And there is no $20,000 camera
that will give you the quality of a $180,000 camera. There are
reasons cameras go up in price.

At your current skill and experience level you don?t need a top of
the line camera. Frankly even a top of the line Viper, CineAlta,
Genisis or Arri D-20 wouldn?t be of much good to you.

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

The question on camera price goes to how the end product will be distributed. The difference between a 20,000 and 2,000 camera is non-existant when viewed on the web. The difference between the two is clear when viewed on a movie screen.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Well, thats true, i dont really need a top of the line camera, actually, if i had to choose between HD and SD, id choose SD. What i want to create really doesnt involve actors or vivid environments.

The camera i have worked with so far is this piece of shit sony DSR-300. When ever i do quick movement shots the video does a weird thing where the screen sorta clips off at a straight line and you see the bottom of the previous frame at the top of the next frame, or something strange like that. Its looks terrible. I really need a camera that does well with fast upclose movement and doesnt give me these weird digital artifacts. What technology should i look for in a camera to give me this?

Thats bizzare, The DSR-300 (if im thinking of the right camera, its shoulder mounted isnt it?), is a fairly decent camera, and if its doing something weird like that it proberbly needs a service.

Tim Ellis
Post Production Editor
paradox.ct?gmail.com

no, its just a shitty camcorder, not a professional shoulder mounted camera. It burns onto these minidvd's which only hold like 15 mins of video, and quality completely blows. After looking at some stabilization technology's implemented in camcorders, i think this one has the EIS, which uses a digital frame buffer to maintain the stabilization, whereas the better OIS technology uses actual gyroscopes and such on the lenses which may actually prevent clipping, but i dont really know, thats why i need some input on what causes digital clipping during fast movement.

Oh, actually i have the sony dcr-dvd101.

That's very different. The DSR-300 is an excellent camera. You're recording to DVD. That's not even acceptable for home movies.

But you're getting some good advice here. After checking the links you posted on your first post, which of the cameras there looks good to you? Any of the onse mentioned will be better than recording to DVD.

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

Actually ive pretty much narrowed it down to the PV-GS500 and the PV-GS400. The reviews are all saying that the 400 has more manual control and better features, however it can only be found used for around $1300. The 500 on the other hand has a better quality image but less features, where all the manual control was shifted onto onscreen menu's and can be found new for around $700.

This is what is missing from the 500:

A dual-function focus/zoom ring, analog-to-digital pass through, a 3.5? LCD, 30P Frame Mode, the built-in mic on the wired remote control, picture adjust, color bars, and zebras.

Any idea what all that is and is it worth twice the price? I dont really know what to do at this point.

I was surprised and disappointed when Panasonic introduced the 500 and took away many of the great features they had on the 400. Most people were. But the 500 is still a pretty good camera for the price.

What is your price range?

$1500 tops, but this will be my entry level camera, so i dont necessarily need every feature and gizmo out there, but neither do i want to spend $700 just to find out that i need some of those features (whats the resell value of camcorder anyways?). Plus whatever i dont spend on a camera i can put towards finding a good stabilization arm (which i desperately do need as all my motion shots will be on foot).

Can someone explain (or send me a link exaplaining) what the features that were omitted from the 500 do? Are they really worth $600?

I can't tell you if the $600 is worth it to you. Not sure anyone who doesn't know you can.

The focus ring is a nice function that allows you to control the focus (and zoom on the 400) by turning a ring on the lens instead of using the motorized toggle switch. The 500 allows you to focus using the ring, but not zoom. That may, or may not, be important to you.

The analog/digital pass through is a function where you can hook up any analog device to the 400 and then hook the 400 to your computer via the firewire cable. I never use that option so it's not worth anything to me. I don't know if that's important to you or not.

The whole camera is smaller so the screen on the 500 is smaller than the one on the 400. It can make a difference.

The 400 offered options to control color, exposure and contrast that the 500 doesn't. Panasonic figured that it's main consumers didn't need those controls so they saved money. If you need those controls, then the $600 is worth it.

I never used the built in mic on my 400, nor did I use it when I used the 500 so I can't tell you anything about the difference, or if it's worth spending the extra money to get a 400.

It's impossible for me to know which camera is better for you or if the extra cost would be worth it to you. I have used both and I own the 400. It's a terrific camera. But the 500 is a fine beginner camera.