a question for pros in the film/vid industry

[GetCarter]

I have a project in mind to film the local area (partly from the air), add some stills and music and flog DVDs to unsuspecting tourists. I've been looking at the SONY HVR-HD1000E ( http://www.videogear.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&... ) to use for said job.

I really don't want to spend a shed load getting an 'all singing' affair, I need decent quality res footage to edit in Premier so...

1/ I assume this camera will be up to the job?

2/ It says in the blurb that it "features a built-in down converter to output DV content - ideal for standard DVD productions". This means as I understand it that it will convert to standard DV res to go on standard DVDs. I understand that I will therefore lose the 'H' from HDV, but will the fact that I have recorded at 1080i mean the results will be substantially better than recording in standard DV? (Or is it just down to quality of lens and sensor?)

I hope that question makes sense.

Ta in advance.

[sevros1981]

1 - Yes this should be ok
2 - Shooting in HDV will produce better results than shooting in DV, but yes, lens and lighting and shooting technique are the largest factor in the quality of footage. Having said that, if you are getting the camera to live downconvert its footage as you capture into Premiere, I question the point in using a HDV camera as the downconversion that the camera does loses more quality than editing in HDV and then outputting an SD DVD using Adobe Encore.

Thoughts -

Why not shoot in HDV and produce interactive CD/DVDROMS that are playable on a PC - that way you can utilise the highest quality footage for the job, still showing back HD footage

Why do you have to buy a camera for the job? If this is a one-off project, then renting one (even a broadcast quality HD XDCAM would only cost about £200 per day - even if you have 5 days shooting, which is a plenty) you will still save money.

also

Why not hire a top quality cameraman for the day - most have their own kit, and then you wouldn't be responsible for the shooting (it would make sense to get the highest quality footage possible, as this is what will sell the product)

YHM

[GetCarter]

sevros1981 said:

1 - Yes this should be ok
2 - Shooting in HDV will produce better results than shooting in DV, but yes, lens and lighting and shooting technique are the largest factor in the quality of footage. Having said that, if you are getting the camera to live downconvert its footage as you capture into Premiere, I question the point in using a HDV camera as the downconversion that the camera does loses more quality than editing in HDV and then outputting an SD DVD using Adobe Encore.

Thoughts -

Why not shoot in HDV and produce interactive CD/DVDROMS that are playable on a PC - that way you can utilise the highest quality footage for the job, still showing back HD footage

Why do you have to buy a camera for the job? If this is a one-off project, then renting one (even a broadcast quality HD XDCAM would only cost about £200 per day - even if you have 5 days shooting, which is a plenty) you will still save money.

also

Why not hire a top quality cameraman for the day - most have their own kit, and then you wouldn't be responsible for the shooting (it would make sense to get the highest quality footage possible, as this is what will sell the product)

YHM

Thanks for that - interesting stuff. My problem with hiring is... and the reason most people don't get great shots of any kind from the West Highlands is... the weather is often crap. (There's a surprise). The reason I get good stills is because I live here and am out when the light is good. Same with a Vid camera... I'd shoot 10:1 to get anything (not being a pro) but I'm looking at 30:1 up here - so will need a lot of time!

As for interactive - well I've done that before, and because of the type of visitor we have here (in the large part as techie as a house brick), 'SIMPLE' is what is needed. People are still selling VHS guides here... and they sell!

Not yet got Mail. will respond. Thanks again.

Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 28th February 12:45

[nick_bbb]

Sounds like a job for a Canon 5D MkII to me, imagine the those moving landscapes through L lenses, yum yum

[sevros1981]

If you have money to burn of course then I would die to see that footage shot through a RED camera. That would be impressive!

[SamHH]

sevros1981 said:

If you have money to burn of course then I would die to see that footage shot through a RED camera. That would be impressive!

What is good about a RED camera?

[GetCarter]

What ISN'T good about a RED camera?

The most sexy kit on the planet.

[SamHH]

GetCarter said:

What ISN'T good about a RED camera?

The most sexy kit on the planet.

Really, I've no idea. I don't know anything about cinematography and I'd never heard of RED until now. I did a Web search and it appears to be a brand of video camera but beyond that I can't tell what it good about it.

[sevros1981]

It's the only digital camera on earth that is capable of shooting at a resolution that is pretty much the same as 35mm film - about 4000 pixels wide (more than twice the size and resolution of a broadcast quality camera at 1080p) And its only the size of a handheld DV camera. If you want to see it in action - go and watch the Che films by Steven Soderbergh. Its relatively cheap and awesome quality. It is also really easy to use, and the footage that comes off the camera is able to be edited on pretty standard edit suites.

[Elderly]

Have you seen Arthus-Bertrand's amazing stills from the air?

[GetCarter]

Elderly said:

Have you seen Arthus-Bertrand's amazing stills from the air?

Indeed... Ab Fab.

[fastfreddy]

sevros1981 said:

It's the only digital camera on earth that is capable of shooting at a resolution that is pretty much the same as 35mm film - about 4000 pixels wide (more than twice the size and resolution of a broadcast quality camera at 1080p) And its only the size of a handheld DV camera. If you want to see it in action - go and watch the Che films by Steven Soderbergh. Its relatively cheap and awesome quality. It is also really easy to use, and the footage that comes off the camera is able to be edited on pretty standard edit suites.

The Che film was shot with a RED One. A small camera if you compare it to 35mm film cameras and other movie-quality HD cameras and at £15k it's a steal but not the one you are referring to I think.

That is the RED Scarlet, which isn't out yet. The Scarlet should be revolutionary in terms of price/performance and I would definitely consider it if I were Steve. You may not use the full quality for your project now, but the archive of material you'd start to build up would be really worth the money. It is supposed to be about £2500 when it's released.

[GetCarter]

fastfreddy said:

sevros1981 said:

It's the only digital camera on earth that is capable of shooting at a resolution that is pretty much the same as 35mm film - about 4000 pixels wide (more than twice the size and resolution of a broadcast quality camera at 1080p) And its only the size of a handheld DV camera. If you want to see it in action - go and watch the Che films by Steven Soderbergh. Its relatively cheap and awesome quality. It is also really easy to use, and the footage that comes off the camera is able to be edited on pretty standard edit suites.

The Che film was shot with a RED One. A small camera if you compare it to 35mm film cameras and other movie-quality HD cameras and at £15k it's a steal but not the one you are referring to I think.

That is the RED Scarlet, which isn't out yet. The Scarlet should be revolutionary in terms of price/performance and I would definitely consider it if I were Steve. You may not use the full quality for your project now, but the archive of material you'd start to build up would be really worth the money. It is supposed to be about £2500 when it's released.

For £2500 I'd sell the wife... but at that price it'll just be the body, Shirley?

(For those that haven't a clue what we are talking about - http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ )

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 1st March 12:14

[fastfreddy]

GetCarter said:

fastfreddy said:

sevros1981 said:

It's the only digital camera on earth that is capable of shooting at a resolution that is pretty much the same as 35mm film - about 4000 pixels wide (more than twice the size and resolution of a broadcast quality camera at 1080p) And its only the size of a handheld DV camera. If you want to see it in action - go and watch the Che films by Steven Soderbergh. Its relatively cheap and awesome quality. It is also really easy to use, and the footage that comes off the camera is able to be edited on pretty standard edit suites.

The Che film was shot with a RED One. A small camera if you compare it to 35mm film cameras and other movie-quality HD cameras and at £15k it's a steal but not the one you are referring to I think.

That is the RED Scarlet, which isn't out yet. The Scarlet should be revolutionary in terms of price/performance and I would definitely consider it if I were Steve. You may not use the full quality for your project now, but the archive of material you'd start to build up would be really worth the money. It is supposed to be about £2500 when it's released.

For £2500 I'd sell the wife... but at that price it'll just be the body, Shirley?

(For those that haven't a clue what we are talking about - http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ )

The one with the fixed lens is going to be the bargain of the century. They are talking about $3000 for camera & lens or $3750 for a 'kit'. Depends on what the exchange rate does between now and then and whether you can wait as to how useful that is to you. Whatever happens, I reckon I could put money on us both owning one before the end of the year

If you need to start shooting now, I would probably look at buying a high end 'prosumer' camcorder like the Sony EX1 or EX3, which you'll probably still get a good price for if you sell it just before the Scarlet comes out.

Or buy something second user so you don't lose too much on it. www.tv-bay.co.uk is worth a look.

[GetCarter]

Cheers for that - good advice.

[GetCarter]

ETA Monty Hall just did this from here (our local beach!). Some great shots from the air.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j2nt6/b00j...

FYI - It's on Sunday nights at 9pm on BBC 2.

[pauljc]

GetCarter said:

(For those that haven't a clue what we are talking about - http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ )

Impressive, but a real strain on the eyes trying to see the black bodies/lenses on black.

[Fordo]

I played with a red at broadcast expo- nice piece of kit. Aparently the workflow can be a bit of a nightmare though.

The red is a quantum leap- a small, but significant step forward. Besides, its really a digital cinema camera anyway. And if i were shooting a movie, id want to shoot an an arriflex D21- now that is a nice camera to use. its just like a film camera, it even has a mirror shutter and an optical viewfinder, which is amazing to use. you can see past the edge of the recording frame, so you can see when the subject is coming into frame before theyre actually in frame. Apparently its very expensive to engineer a mirror shutter for film/video use, which is why it doesnt feature on the red.


Back on topic though, i dont like the camera the OP posted about. Its the same electronics inside as sonys smaller prosumer cameras, just in a bigger body with a bigger price tag. Mainly aimed at wedding videographers who need the lower end of hd (hdv), but need a big body camera to shoulder mount and to look impressive because its big!

Unless you need shoulder mount cam, id go for something like sony's HVR-Z7E. I think its the best hdv camera sony have made, and can take cracking pictures for the price. Much better in low light than other hdv cameras ive used, but nowhere near as good as cameras with larger sensors (like sonys EX1 or EX3 for exmaple)

hope that helps

[GetCarter]

It does indeed except the HVR-Z7E is between 3 and 4 times the price!

Edited by GetCarter on Monday 2nd March 16:40

[Fordo]

oh, and point 2- like others have said, much better to downconvert in post after.

remeber, video is compresed, so if you down convert in camera you do this

HDV, is downconverted to DV.

you then edit in dv

your DV edit is then converted to an mpeg2 (if your mastering to DVD)

youve converted hdv, which is a lossy codec, to dv which is another lossy codec, then to an mpeg2 format for dvd.

youve converted the format of your video twice.



if you record hdv, edit in hdv, then convert your hdv master to mpeg2, youve only converted formats once, and you retain much more of the quality of the original.

hope that makes sense.

Edited by Fordo on Monday 2nd March 16:40