HD Camcorder

[matanuskaski]

Don't get too hung up on bitrate for home video cameras. Yes 24mbps is 2x as high as say 12, but if you're compressing the final output for viewing on youtube or even vimeo then it really doesn't matter, since those sites will re-compress your video.

Just as a reality check - current standard definition broadcast DVCPro is 25mbps for longer record times, 50mbps for "HQ" standard def., and 100mbps for 720p HD.

A good standard def. camera shot in 16x9, like the Panasonic AG DVX100B, will look amazing even upconverted to HD (it's just line doubling anyway.) Those cameras run ~$2000 on eBay - you may want to consider one.

Agree completely.. I've looked at the 100B quite a bit and will probably just end up saving up for a proline camera down the road.. I have had a lot of success with Panasonic over the years.. Shot on 215 and 415's back in high school.. As it is I luckily have the ability to borrow one if I really need it.. Great Info as always TIPP..

[kidwoo]

Thanks for the insight.

Actually, this is primarily going to be used for shooting fishing related material, likely go underwater (not deep) in housing (next purchase). Essentially this means there's going to be a lot of steady scenics with the only real motion coming from very natural movements, which although can be quick at times, are not jittery or shaky like biking or skiing. Still sucky for this?

If you can bolt the thing down underwater where it literally won't be moving then sure, a CMOS cam would probably be fine. But then again why risk it? If you do ANY hand held shots, they will suffer......greatly. There's really nothing going on with the canons that can't be matched by another camera that doesn't suffer this potential headache. The reason the canons got all hyped up initially was that they shoot 24p (24 progressive frames per second). This meant a consumer sized camera that could produce a more film like look. The HDC-SD9 does this too though. So do some other panasonics and even some sonys. From what I've seen the sonys do a better job with the CMOS chips than canon.

Since I won't ultimately be viewing a final product on all material for likely a year from now, and in my mind I imagine watching this (and feel free to tell me I'm crazy in this line of thought) in HD on blu-ray DVD at home. Still anti-HD in this case? Is this idiot vid-jong line of thinking?

I'll be honest. I haven't seen much from any of these smaller cameras that really looks like true, high quality HD. I know the pixels are there but they suffer in one way or another that always seems to make the image a little degraded. The thing is though........it's difficult to even FIND a good standard definition camera now in this range that has the same features. So in that respect I'll back your HD quest. If you really want stunning HD blue-ray projects, you're probably going to need a stunning HD camera. These don't cost under 1K.

Traveling with the product will be essential...lots of walking and more than likely self-filming so semi-stowability and ease of use is a big factor. I imagine it would be tough carrying a couple of rods, tackle, etc along with a clunky cam.

Regarding destroying a computer with HD footage is that a storage issue, or processing issue? If storage, can external drives cover this? and if processing, how might those who do it, do it?

I feel like I'm obviously self talking myself into HD for potentially no reason and against better judgment, but do the criticisms against HD and AVCHD change when my above mentioned uses come into play?

I travel around with a full camera bag, tripod, shovels and a mountain bike far away from civilization so I don't really think carrying fishing gear plus a good camera is that big a deal. But yeah, these little cams are a hell of a lot less work considering you could essentially lose them in your pockets.

Processor, RAM and storage need to be pretty up to date to handle HD footage efficiently.

I will say this......the flash cards for storage vs tape is BAD ASS. At some point you WILL lose a shot on tape because of a drop out when recording. But again, it's a matter of making sure you can handle AVCHD or dvcpro. Since so many cameras are doing this now, it will only get better support.


Check this article out on CMOS vs CCD

http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

[mushmouth]

geesh...as anticipated, the information all points to one thing...there is no exactly right choice and the only choice really close to a right choice is a brazillion $$.

After reading that article and heeding the advice, yet still being somewhat hard headed, I'm leaning towards the panny HD now, but the one piece of the article that concerns me is the smear and the fact that fishing tends to coincide with sunrises and sets, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and this can be addressed in other ways.

I'll keep reading, but thanks again!

[kidwoo]

geesh...as anticipated, the information all points to one thing...there is no exactly right choice and the only choice really close to a right choice is a brazillion $$.

After reading that article and heeding the advice, yet still being somewhat hard headed, I'm leaning towards the panny HD now, but the one piece of the article that concerns me is the smear and the fact that fishing tends to coincide with sunrises and sets, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and this can be addressed in other ways.

I'll keep reading, but thanks again!

Here's an example of smearing. This is my hdc-sd9 in pretty crappy light. Check out the lights on the ceiling. That's smearing. Considering the sun will be your only source of light while outside shooting, you'll probably never see it. In fact.....you just won't unless you're looking into a flashlight.

http://kidwoo.com/vids/gocartandy.wmv


Would you have even noticed it if I hadn't pointed it out?

[mushmouth]

Here's an example of smearing. This is my hdc-sd9 in pretty crappy light. Check out the lights on the ceiling. That's smearing. Considering the sun will be your only source of light while outside shooting, you'll probably never see it. In fact.....you just won't unless you're looking into a flashlight.

http://kidwoo.com/vids/gocartandy.wmv


Would you have even noticed it if I hadn't pointed it out?

Well, since I was prepared for it, it was all that i could see, but it was noticeable. The issue with the sun is that at sunrise the best footage is with sun at your back and the sun is then just like a flashlight glaring into the the shutter.

So you currently use this for your headcam? Why not use the aiptek or the Xactia that Tippster showed?

[kidwoo]

Well, since I was prepared for it, it was all that i could see, but it was noticeable. The issue with the sun is that at sunrise the best footage is with sun at your back and the sun is then just like a flashlight glaring into the the shutter.

So you currently use this for your headcam? Why not use the aiptek or the Xactia that Tippster showed?

Smearing only occurs when looking AT a light source. And even then it's only certain kinds of light (usally manmade sources). If it occured while something is illuminated from behind the camera (think about it.....that's EVERYTHING) then the chips would be useless.


Look at some of my vids with sunsets/sunrises etc. This is all CCD chips. It's not an issue.

http://www.kidwoo.com/images/praxis/MotiveTrailer.wmv

http://www.kidwoo.com/images/diablo.wmv

http://www.kidwoo.com/images/bmbike/...Red%20merc.wmv

Even in that article I posted the author specifies when it occurs. Outdoors with natural light is never a problem unless your looking at headlights from a car at night or something similar.


As far as using the aiptek type cameras, the ones I saw had almost no manual control (iris, shutter speed etc.), plus no 24 fps option, plus no optical image stabilization (digital stabilization is something different). The sd9 does. And I've seen a lot of helmet use of those aipteks. I have yet to see a clip that doesn't look like ass.

[mushmouth]

thanks for putting those up. great footage and the different lighting was good to see. I didn't notice any smearing and the footage was good enough that I didn't even care to look for it!

I'm curious though why, at times, the images look dead-on for color, then at other times look like there are yellow tones in the greenery?

Maybe my eyes are fuct, but here are examples from the diablo.wmv file:

:32-:39 - Yellow tones
:40-:41 - great
:42-:44 - yellow tones
1:02 (green gloves) great
~1:11 - yellowish

It goes back and forth, but do you see it? I can imagine that shooting so many different light situations in the trees it's impossible to get it all down, but I guess the question is how much control is there in adjusting settings on these types of cameras to account for varying light and can you tell from the view finder if you're making the right adjustments?

[kidwoo]

I'm curious though why, at times, the images look dead-on for color, then at other times look like there are yellow tones in the greenery?

You remember all the fires at the beginning of the summer in california?

That's just what everything looked like. Seriously. The sky was orange for two months. That wasn't the camera, that was life in this state. (see beginning of 'In the Red' for reference )

I can imagine that shooting so many different light situations in the trees it's impossible to get it all down, but I guess the question is how much control is there in adjusting settings on these types of cameras to account for varying light and can you tell from the view finder if you're making the right adjustments?

If by 'these types of cameras' you mean the DVX100B that most of those shots came from, then yes you have a pretty substantial bit of control over color tones. That's actually what makes panasonics REALLY popular.


If you mean the SD9 which was only the helmet cam shots in those clips, then you don't have dick for control over color tones other than some presets like 'skin tone' that some of them have. That's why I and tippster keep suggesting getting a 'real' camera like the DVX if you're really concerned about it. Keep in mind too that you can always do some color correction in a decent editing program.

But again.......if you're shooting snow on sunny days, all digital cameras work their best in bright sunlight.....even the cheapos. I'll dare say that EVERY modern digital camera can look really good on bluebird days shooting skiing. Just avoid the woods where things will get all splotchy.

I just put those up because 1) there are a few helmet shots in the 'Motive' and 'In the Red' vids from the SD9 and

2) Both are CCD cameras, you will never see smearing from natural sunlight and ONLY from manmade light sources in a darker background.


Here's another clip from the SD9 on a clear sunny day with few shadows. Looks a lot better than that gocart clip.

http://kidwoo.com/images/movies/1004Q4.bak.avi



Here's a clip from a canon HV20 ON A TRIPOD. Even slight movements from wind caused this. It's exactly like what I saw from my HV30. Jellovision. Now imagine normal hand shake when you go to shoot something.

http://www.chew.it/public/sunset.mov

[ripdaeast]

Hello all~
I want to get a video camera for this winter to take some film of avalanche control, skiing, and friends. I'm kinda torn on what I need to get. I originally started looking into the consumer HD cams because they're small, record to SDHC cards, and it seemed like if I shot everything in SD it would look like shit when I burned it to DVD and played it on an HD TV (which it seems like a lot of people have or will in the next 5 years). Now that I've done quite a bit or research I have completely no idea what I need for a camcorder.

Basically I just want a camera that I can take nice quality skiing shots with that I can edit a moderate amount. I want the snow to have good definition, and want fast moving skiers to have good color, contrast, and sharpness. I want to be able to shoot at a couple different speeds (60i and 24p) because I want to be able to edit the film and put in some slow motion shots that don't look like total shit.

I'm a ski patroller and need the camera to be small enough to fit in my jacket so I can film some avalanche control footage. This also means that the sensor and optics need to be good enough to get good definition in the snow (since avalanches are white stuff moving over other white stuff I think this is tough for some cameras). I'm concerned that an SD camcorder will have a lot of noise and artifacting when played on an HD TV.

Is that too much to ask for?

Cameras I'm looking at are:
High Def:
Panasonic SD9 (3ccd)
Canon HF100 (cmos)

Standard Def:
Canon FS100 (CCD)
Panasonic SDR-S7 (CCD)

Originally I had settled on the HF100, as it seems to have amazing picture quality, but after reading about cmos sensor cameras with rolling shutter I'm a little worried about that one. I will NOT be using it for a helmet cam, but will be doing most of my shooting hand held or with a monopod. Is this going to be a big deal?

The SD9 seems to be quite good at dealing with motion (and I think it has a manual focus ring, not just a button), but I'm curious about the image quality in the snow.

I haven't read much about the SD cams yet, but they use the same type sensors as the SD9 and it seems like it might be worth it to step up to the HD.

Thanks~

[altabird92]

^^ everything you mention is tough to find in a compact video camera
i dont even think that the ones you mention shoot 60i
some sanyos do, and they are very small
24p is probably not what you want for action, as it doesnt look as good when panning fast
your best bet may be to get a camera like either of the casio superzooms that shoot stills
they shoot HD, as well as some rediculous frame rates
the new panasonic sd100 actually has variable frame rates-look at that

[kidwoo]

EVERY video camera shoots 60i. It's the baseline video format for DV and for television. Any other frame rate is encoded in this baseline format. If you see a camera that doesn't specify any additional frame rates, it's 60i. The SD100 shoots 60interlaced and 24progressive. Some of the canons do this PLUS 30p, which for all intents and purposes will look like 60i for motion.

As far as 24p not looking good for action, yeah it's true if you don't know the limitations and work around them but almost all ski vids are 24p. Think about that. It's highly doable and looks a hell of a lot more pro than 60i if you know what you're doing.

Ripdaeast: The only CMOS cameras I've seen that don't suffer horribly from rolling shutter artifacting are a few sonys. Canons are the worst. As far as SD looking like crap on an HD tv, it doesn't. If you have a clean SD clip, it will look even better on an HD tv.

[mushmouth]

Quicky about the CMOS vs. 3CCD on the higher end cameras. I saw where Whiteroom Guardian bought the FX7 and I assume he's going to use it for ski related material. Why haven't I heard the same level of displeasure over CMOS in the higher end Sony?

Does Sony do CMOS so much better than Canon that a Sony CMOS at the $100 level would be viable?

[kidwoo]

Quicky about the CMOS vs. 3CCD on the higher end cameras. I saw where Whiteroom Guardian bought the FX7 and I assume he's going to use it for ski related material. Why haven't I heard the same level of displeasure over CMOS in the higher end Sony?

You're not looking in the right places for answers . (I just mean video forums) There have been lots of complaints about higher end sony cmos cameras, including the EX1. But to be honest they're from the type that even make me roll my eyes. Rolling shutter artifacts exist on every CMOS camera. But yes, from everything I've seen, sonys handle it the best.

That was white guardian's first camera purchase btw. He didn't know what the hell he was doing

EDIT: speaking of FX7, holy shit those things got cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...HDV_1080i.html

Get one.

Does Sony do CMOS so much better than Canon that a Sony CMOS at the $100 level would be viable?

I guess you mean $1000? I'd say yes. I've seen some clips from cheap sony CMOS cameras where there is still that wavering image effect, but it's nowhere near what the canons do. In fact it's pretty much unnoticeable if you're not looking for it. If you're going to go cmos, go sony. The only reason I don't get all excited about sony cameras is that there are other brands that do other things much better. So yes, sony seems to have the CMOS thing worked out moreso than the other common brands.

[Tippster]

EVERY video camera shoots 60i. It's the baseline video format for DV and for television. Any other frame rate is encoded in this baseline format. If you see a camera that doesn't specify any additional frame rates, it's 60i.

As long as it's NTSC, then yes. PAL (Yurp) is 50i (50 interlaced fields)

The SD100 shoots 60interlaced and 24progressive. Some of the canons do this PLUS 30p, which for all intents and purposes will look like 60i for motion.

60i will be smoother, since it's basically drawing 2 pictures per frame, not one.

As far as 24p not looking good for action, yeah it's true if you don't know the limitations and work around them but almost all ski vids are 24p.

That is true for 2 reasons. Initially ski movies were shot on film, which is 24 fps. Then when they mixed in video it was easier to shoot everything in 24p to match the look and not have to do a 3/2 pulldown to edit on the AVID.

It's highly doable and looks a hell of a lot more pro than 60i if you know what you're doing.

The only reason it looks more "pro" is the slight strobing of the 24p is more "filmlike," so it seems "higher quality." It's a purely visceral thing and has nothing to do with being better for smooth action, which it is not.

I'm kinda torn on what I need to get. I originally started looking into the consumer HD cams because they're small, record to SDHC cards, and it seemed like if I shot everything in SD it would look like shit when I burned it to DVD and played it on an HD TV (which it seems like a lot of people have or will in the next 5 years).

All DVDs are Standard Definition, so shooting in HD then downconverting it to SD to record to DVD and then having your TV upconvert it back to HD makes no sense. If you can get really clean SD footage to start with then you'll end up with a very good final product, likely better than doing 2x the converting in the HD>SD>HD flow.

If you're planning on burning it to BluRay then get a 1080p camera and keep the format constant.

[mushmouth]

home stretch here and this question is with regards to tape versus hard drive or cards as it relates to my purposes:

As mentioned before, the majority of the footage is going to be fishing related. From experience I know this tends to mean a lot of wasted footage of nothing...stuff that simply gets deleted, over and over. I can go through hours of footage of casting hoping to get strikes and end up with hours of worthless footage.

Would this mean I would constantly have to transfer 60min tapes to my computer to get the single 30 seconds that is useful? ...if this were you, would this be enough of a factor to deal with the pressure that AVCHD would put on your machines and to accept the slightly lesser quality people say this form produces? Can you delete clips from these not tape formats?

Finally, I'd like to throw out a big "fuck you" to the camcorder industry...just for the hell of it.

[Tippster]

If you use either an HDD or SDHC card camcorder then they make a thumbnail every time you hit record. These thumbnails correspond with that file, and are usually the 1st frame of video (so don't hit record when pointing on the ground - the thumbnail will look like feet/asphalt/boat deck etc)

Every time after you shoot the cast and get skunked merely delete the file from the HDD/card. No tape wasted. If you don't have time to delete the files, merely look at the files when you go to edit and only ingest the ones you want. I'd take the 30 seconds after knowing you got nothing and go into the file menu to delete it rather than waiting 'til later only to run out of storage when you need it on that lunker.

[ripdaeast]

Thanks for all the great advice.

The HD > SD > HD makes total sense, but if I have my final product in HD then I have the option to burn to HD with BluRay or to dumb it down to a normal SD DVD. I'm just thinking that it might be worth it to get the Panasonic SD9 since it has a very similar sensor to those flash based SD cams I'm looking at, and then all my footage would be HD. I'm thinking it will be cumbersome to lug around a miniDV based cam vs a smaller flash based one, but I need to get into a store to get my hands on some of these cameras.

The only benefits to getting an SD camera seems to be improved optical zoom and cheaper cost. Am I missing something?

[Tippster]

Well, it's up to you what you want. As has been stated over and over the 1/3" chip 3CCD cameras like the Panasonic DVX100B or the Sony PD150 will give you much higher production value, better looking shots, and are more tweakable in every way. That sounds like overkill for what you want to do, so go with the handicam option. If you read the thread then you'll agree that you should get an SDHC Card camera over a HDD, especially if you're going to be shooting at altitude. I honestly think the AVCHD editing issues will get solved over time.

Here's a really good deal on the Panasonic SD9: http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-HDC-...7224903&sr=1-1

[kidwoo]

Glad you chimed back in tipp.

60i will be smoother, since it's basically drawing 2 pictures per frame, not one..

That's debatable. You're still getting a net effect of 30 frames per second unless you're watching on a true interlaced television which takes advantage of the format.... And most people looking to buy video cameras will be editing and showing on computers......and will deinterlace anyway. I've shot a shit ton of biking and skiing in both 30p and 60i. It's negligible in my mind. Which is why I said 'for all intents and purposes'

That is true for 2 reasons. Initially ski movies were shot on film, which is 24 fps. Then when they mixed in video it was easier to shoot everything in 24p to match the look and not have to do a 3/2 pulldown to edit on the AVID. The only reason it looks more "pro" is the slight strobing of the 24p is more "filmlike," so it seems "higher quality." It's a purely visceral thing and has nothing to do with being better for smooth action, which it is not.

Yeah I'm aware of all this. But it doesn't explain groups that shoot exclusively in 24p who never use film.....which there are PLENTY of. There's a certain look to it. Lots of people prefer it. I'm one of them. And it's not the strobing that makes it look more pro. I do everything I can to eliminate strobing as much as possible.

Plus using 24fps timelines makes slo mo really easy

[Tippster]

You're still getting a net effect of 30 frames per second unless you're watching on a true interlaced television which takes advantage of the format.... And most people looking to buy video cameras will be editing and showing on computers......and will deinterlace anyway.

Good point - I'm still stuck in TV World I guess...

[kidwoo]

Good point - I'm still stuck in TV World I guess...

Being an industry guy, how much longer you think interlaced broadcasts have? The reason for doing it in the first place has kind of passed. With HD progressive scan screens only gaining in popularity, I wonder.... I guess HD has to take over first.


I've also got a real question for you that's kind of thread related in that it deals with different frame rates/formats in final productions. You watch something like a TGR or Matchstick film and there's obviously film, 60i (helmet cams and such) and everything in between in the final product. How the hell do you output something like that as a whole without compromising at least one of the many formats? Something I've always wondered.

[sftc]

....If you read the thread then you'll agree that you should get an SDHC Card camera over a HDD, especially if you're going to be shooting at altitude. I honestly think the AVCHD editing issues will get solved over time....

Tip, What thread are you talking about? I remember hearing some people talk about HDD's having issues at altitude, and I searched around but I couldn't find anything on it.

Has anyone checked out the Sony HDR-SR12? It looks like they've claimed to have solved most of the AVCHD issues with this camera, but it's based upon recording images to a 120GB HDD, but I assume you can always record data to memory sticks.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...view-34809.htm

Also, has anyone actually done any editing with AVCHD with Final Cut Express or Pro? Apple claims the new Mac Book Pros can deal with AVCHD but I haven't heard much feedback from the real world, except that they still have issues with the both Exp. and Pro crashing.

[Tippster]

Being an industry guy, how much longer you think interlaced broadcasts have?

As long as they show fast-action sports.

The reason for doing it in the first place has kind of passed.

ORLY? Then why is every major LCD manufacturer coming out with 120Hz screens that interpolate already interlaced video to make it even smoother looking?

With HD progressive scan screens only gaining in popularity, I wonder.... I guess HD has to take over first.

For film look, yes. I firmly believe there will always be a market for 1080i for sports. 1080p is currently only available in Blu-Ray... in other words: Films.

I've also got a real question for you that's kind of thread related in that it deals with different frame rates/formats in final productions. You watch something like a TGR or Matchstick film and there's obviously film, 60i (helmet cams and such) and everything in between in the final product. How the hell do you output something like that as a whole without compromising at least one of the many formats? Something I've always wondered.

Well that's been the question since they started showing films on TV. Even people like George Lucas have their own ideas about that.

Tip, What thread are you talking about? I remember hearing some people talk about HDD's having issues at altitude, and I searched around but I couldn't find anything on it...

Sorry -- it's all a blur. I blame the marijuana. Here's the thread on altitude and HDDs: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...light=altitude

[kidwoo]

As long as they show fast-action sports. ORLY? Then why is every major LCD manufacturer coming out with 120Hz screens that interpolate already interlaced video to make it even smoother looking?

Well my understanding of interlaced is that it was done to facilitate transmission.

The 60 samples per second was just a side effect, albeit a beneficial one with lots of movement.

Maybe you're right. Or maybe with LCD screens broadcasts will drop the interlaced and just broadcast at 60 true progressive frames like they should anyway

[Tippster]

That would take up a shitton of bandwidth...