it sounds like you are in that spot we have all been in. That is, you have made some short films at a very ametuer level and now you want to take it a step further and maybe buy a new camera and try new things. Go ahead. Buy a new camera. I'm not sure if $2,000 is going to bump you up to the level you sound like you want to go to but it will help. But if you do buy a camera then make a film with the mic still plugged into the camera. Then buy a better mic. Make a film with that. Then take your new and improved mic and record sound externally. My point is this, i always find it was easier to learn by taking baby steps. Otherwise you end up spending way over what intended to spend and you have a bunch a crap you barley know how to use and you end up on the floor tied up in wires saying "how the hell did i get here".

So, you need to do whatever you feel comfortable doing. but whatever you do dont stop making films because you dont have the ideal equipment. That would be a huge mistake

I would stay with digital right now. Staying digital also helps because you can record sound directly to the camera and it will sound fine. If you go film you have to record seperatly.

you have two options: 1)keep saving for a better camera or 2) use some of teh $2,000 and upgrade something (possibly a mic or editing sopftware) that decision is up to you. i would suggest choice one. either way dont stop production or take a break. Shoot and shoot often.

Good luck

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

quote:

---

Originally posted by trebax

Hello everyone. I am attempting to start a career in the film industry and I would like to ask all of you a few questions. First, if I am limited to a budget of around $2,000 how should I begin this jump into the unknown?

---

Start with a really good script and do a complete breakdown and a line item budget.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trebax

I have a Canon zr60, a very basic miniDV camera but I have a feeling that a serious attempt will require more camera power. I have experience with cameras including composition, lighting, exposure,etc however I have much more to learn.I have completed a few short films but they are very simple and amateur. Considering that I will be limited by my low budget, should I buy a better digital camera or go with film?

---

I agree with robi. On a total budget of $2,000 stay with digital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trebax

(I have experience with Adobe Premiere and access to it). Also, audio: I have an external mic that i have been using that is extended with an 8ft cord. Should I keep using on camera audio recording or should I switch to off-camera recording? And if I need to switch, what do you suggest? Any help is greatly appreciated.

---

You can keep recording directly to the camera. Putting an external mic as close to the actors as possible is the right way to get better dialogue tracks.

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

thanks for the replies, I shall continue my research and filming

I would say, keep saving your money and making movies with what you have. Wait till you get about 3200 dollars and then buy a Panasonic DVX100a. The you can shoot 24P mode, getting the film look, while still staying on the DV budget. If you need to be convinced of the look the camera gives, Two websites rock! Go to:
www.whatisbroken.com
www.silentamy.com
Both things were shot on the DVX100a. You can order the DVD for Broken. I just received mine. The movie was about 20 minutes long and got a thumbs up from Reger Ebert. There are about 3 hours of behind the scene special features showing how they did it. Also order or rent the movie "November", with Courtney Cox. That Feature Film was also shot on the DVX100a. Considering the price and quality of the results, I would definitely save my money and get that camera. Then at least the sky is the limit for what you can do.

Matthew Sconce

Oops...Roger Ebert not Reger....LOL!

Matthew Sconce

I have heard a lot about the Panasonic DVX100s producing film-like footage. Is this a result of the 24p mode? Also, other cameras i have been researching also contain this mode, like the Canon XL-2. Would this camera also produce this film-like footage?

Any camera that can claim 24p can mimic film to some extent. The Canon has replacable lenses which can be nice if you have access to lenses and the knowledge and desire to keep swapping lenses. There isn't much else of a difference.

The 24p is not a guarantee of film look though. You have to light things correctly for one. I have been shooting with a Panasonic and the stuff looks good, but I haven't outputted it or watched it on a large screen so I can't guarantee anything.

Has anyone here outputted Panasonic DVX100a 24p and does it have jaggies or any other annoying video artifacts when you do?

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Ive never had a problem with it

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick