Question about semi-professional video cameras

- Collapse -

Since we can't see what you see,

by boya84 Jun 6, 2009 1:50AM PDT

perhaps a little more clarification... and some definition...

If you "need something with broadcast quality (or near) image and sound", the easiest method is to understand how *they* get there.

Prosumer and pro grade camcorders generally have large imaging chips and large lenses when compared to consumer camcorders. Prosumer audio connections are made with a 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo audio-in jack; Professional audio connections are made with XLR audio-in connections. Prosumer cams can use XLR mics by adding an XLR adapter like those from juicedLink or BeachTek. Prosumer and pro-grade cameras have lots of easy to get to manual controls on the outside of the camcorder - not buried in a menu - including manual audio, zoom, focus, aperture, gain, and a few others.

Pretty much ALL camcorders can capture acceptable video when the lighting is good for that camcorder's "operating range" and the camcorder is on some sort of stabilization device - tripod, crane, shoulder-mount system, "steadycam" system, chair, table, whatever... but pretty much never handheld.

If you are shooting indoors, then you get to control the lighting - so the investment needs to be made for that stuff. It could be as easy as a couple of work-lights or as complex as several PAR cans, dimmers and light trees or ceiling mounts and gels (see what news studios or talk shows use). Three-point lighting is good knowledge to have.

High definition video holds four times more data than standard definition video. It is very crisp - and will show LOTS of stuff normally not seen in standard definition video. Most consumer camcorders capture at 29.97 frames per second (normally referred to as 30 fps - check wikipedia for that and the relationship to NTSC standards). higher-end consumer and up are now coming out with optional 24 fps setting for a more "movie/cinema-like" visual experience.

Yes, high definition video files are large - Yes, it is possible to have high quality video without using HD... The question is whether HD quality is required, but only you can answer that.

Check vimeo.com. They have lots of HD and SD video for comparison. You can also select a non-HD version of HD video. YouTube and most other video sharing sites have similar "regular/high quality/high definition selections available. This is what compression does to HD video. Are you planning to provide similar capability to those who may not have a computer powerful enough to deal with HD video or perhaps do not have fast internet connections to handle the data rate?

Check http://www.youtube.com/user/snocapsf
8mm was shot using a Panasonic AG-DVX100 and Sony HDR-HC1; The Donnas was shot with 3 Panasonic AG-DVX100s and all were saved as MP4 files. Switch between "regular" and "High Quality" to see the difference.

In your price range, there is a pretty short list...
Standard definition:
Canon GL2 (1/8" audio connector, good sized lens and imaging chip; been around for years - workhorse camcorder)
Panasonic AG-DVC20 (shoulder-mount camcorder in the "pro" line, but lens and imaging chip are "consumer-grade" size; 1/8" audio connector)

High definition:
Sony HVR-HD1000U (a shoulder-mount camcorder in the "pro" line, but lens and imaging chip are "consumer-grade" size)
Sony HVR-A1U (hand-held camcorder in the "pro" line, but lens and imaging chip are "consumer-grade" size; has XLR audio connections)

In the consumer environment, the Canon HV30/HV40 camcorders could work - but most of the manual settings are menu driven, 1/8" audio jack, small lenses and imaging chips...

Notice I have not listed much in the way of non-tape camcorders... we can go down that path if you want - there are several high-end consumer camcorders that might work for you - like the newer Sony HDR-CX and HDR-XR series and Canon HF and HF S series. AVCHD high definition (MTS) files can be challenging and the process flow for editing continues to have challenges for hard disc drive (HDD) and flash memory camcorders. In either case, high definition video (whether MTS or HDV) may have serious computer system upgrade requirements that you can consider before making the leap.

I have every confidence, fellow posters and lurkers will chime in... but when all is said and done, miniDV tape continues to be the top of the heap in the prosumer and professional grade camcorder environment (as much as the manufacturers would like us to move into the immature HDD and flash memory environments) - and it has its own set of editing requirements - with a well defined and cost effective process flow.

- Collapse -

What I need

by robot79 Jun 6, 2009 6:20PM PDT

Thanks for the response so far.

To clarify what I'm trying to achieve, here's two clips.

What I want TO AVOID: the low-budget home video lesson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef7rXEwHDFk&feature=PlayList&p=2CA9AE0264B2126E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16

And on the front page of this site, a GOOD EXAMPLE of the quality of video I'd like:

http://www.knewton.com/gmat/

I checked out the YouTube link you included. Both the regular or HQ footage look good to me -- they both have a somewhat commercial TV look -- so I don't think I need anything HD. My real question is how can I achieve that TV look that the second link has.

- Collapse -

well...

by boya84 Jun 7, 2009 1:12AM PDT

In my opinion... These are a bit difficult to compare. One is the actual "segment" - the other is a "short attention-span theater" commercial.

The SuperMagnetMan one uses a single camera. No cuts. No change in camera frame or view. Only two lighting sources indoors - note his shadow and brightspot on the white board. Odd choice for background. No graphics. The good news is he used a wireless lav - his audio is decent. Since he is in a small room, there is no depth of field - there is no "field". There was no editing - just one long stream of verbal delivery. This was likely shot once or twice and the good one was deemed "good enough".

The Knewton video is done outdoors with a higher-end camcorder (hence the depth of field). There is action, cuts, a good editor (like FinalCut or Premiere) and graphics/titles application (like LiveType) and it was well planned and scripted - and likely storeyboarded. #2 used a wireless lav, too. For the most part, the speaker is looking AT the camera, unless looking at the surroundings makes sense. It is likely the speaker's portions were shot about 10-15 times (if not more), then edited. B-roll of the other stuff was captured and incorporated.

This is ALL about combining creatively editing the content - and wardrobe, and camera presence (SuperMagnetMan moves too much). The person who captured and edited the Knewton stuff was well trained in using their editor - and is very creative - I suspect that about an hour or more of video was catptured that resulted in that 32 seconds.

Again - in my opinion, the camera is a small part of this entire "system". SuperMagnetMan *could* have had cuts to close up on him, on the booklet, on the cuts to other scenes of looking at a watch, or students taking the test or paragraphs from the test or many other possible "b-roll" video. But he didn't.

A few other observations... One is 4:3 DV. The other is widescreen - whether HD or DV widescreen does not matter. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Knewton video was shot with a Panasonic AG-DVX100 or HDX200, Canon XHA1, Sony HDR-FX1/HVR-Z1 or HDR-FX7/HVR-V1...

- Collapse -

Re: well...

by robot79 Jun 7, 2009 2:30PM PDT

Thx boya.

I know they're an odd comparison, and for sure there are many differences lighting, cuts, editing, etc; I was mostly asking about camera quality.

The first one looks like it was shot on a $150 home camera that someone received as a Christmas present from the wife.

The second one is sharp and professional. That's what I want. Even if the first video has all the effects that the second one did, it still wouldn't look as good.

I'll check out the cams you wager it was shot with.

- Collapse -

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

by Desperado JC Jun 7, 2009 3:43PM PDT

I'm guessing that Knewton was shot with a green screen rather than outside. The tip off is in the lighting seen on the speaker which frequently differs from the background lighting. The use of a green screen may explain the apparent depth of field.

I would also rule out the XHA1 as the camera. The image of the speaker is too soft to come from the XHA1. The camera used may have been an older one which lacks the resolution needed for a sharp, clear image.

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info