Help me find the right camera - Gaming World Forums

Topic: Help me find the right camera (Read 1056 times)

Print

Roman

#1 June 30, 2008, 01:45:05 am

Gameboy Advanced Member
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Apr 9, 2002
Posts: 1460

Despite being an aspiring filmmaker, I don't actually know very much about cameras and other film equipment (yet). So I need your help! Basically I want to buy a hand held video camera for personal projects (as opposed to school projects, in which case I can rent better equipment from the school's equipment office), but I don't really know what the best camera would be to get. I guess I could just get ANY OL' CAMERA, but then again I don't want to buy something and then realize that it doesn't have enough options or whatever so just in case I would like to get some recommendations from other aspiring filmmakers (basically esh and psyburn).

Also, just for the hell of it, recommend some good microphones, too. I know there are different kinds of microphones so for now just recommend good shotgun mics and if I ever really need anything else I'll ask for it I guess.

also also sorry for not having any INTERESTING TOPICS lately i'll think of something soon ok

oh yeah by the way i'm not too worried about price range. if whatever you recommend is too expensive i'll ask again and make you guys do even more work for me

Logged

pburn

#2 June 30, 2008, 01:49:08 am

What, me worry?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 1752

I can't really recommend any camcorders, but try to get something HD.

Microphones, the best and probably only option is the Rode Videomic. It's like $170 and has the best sound quality that you will find at a low price. It's one of the most popular video mics out there.

http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=VideoMic

However if you buy that I also recommend you buy the windcat accessory, as the mic picks up the slightest bit of wind.

Logged

Roman

#3 June 30, 2008, 01:57:04 am

Gameboy Advanced Member
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Apr 9, 2002
Posts: 1460

Yeah, I brought up the Sony HD Camera at dinner today and my brother said that I don't want that because it doesn't have enough options for movie makers I guess, but I figured I'd ask here just in case. I'm not sure how much OPTIONS really matter, but if they do then I'm willing to take the time to learn about what different options can do to.... bring my vision to life...

Logged

pburn

#4 June 30, 2008, 02:06:27 am

What, me worry?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 1752

Well, you can make a great movie with a shitty camera. I guess a camera could be limiting depending on the format, lenses, shoe sockets, etc. Find some reviews, do research on the recording format etc. There are tons of "WHICH CAMERA DO I USE FOR MY MOVIES" threads on dozens of forums across the interweb; so look those up.

Personally I use a cheap Canon Elura 90. I just use some dramatic angles and put fancy filters on everything which apparently convinces people that I'm using an ultra professional camera.

I don't know much so I'll leave this to the next few people..............but they don't know anything about film equipment.

Logged

Damug

#5 June 30, 2008, 02:39:34 am

Group: Member
Joined: Jul 27, 2005
Posts: 82

The camera I use on most of my films is a Panasoc AG-DVC30 and I absolutely love the quality it produces, but it's not the typical budget camcorder. Since you may not have access to expensive school equipment you could use any basic budget camcorder as you don't always need the best equipment to succed.

Anyway I suggest trying to get the following things in a camcorder; 16:9/Letterbox, a 24p, and CCD Chips. These will drastically alter your films and are very precious to the film-making process for specfic features.

Logged

jumar1987

#6 June 30, 2008, 02:59:56 pm

Game Programming Fighter/Lover
Group: Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 80

I worked with people who used the DVX-100 and HVX-200 and both seemed pretty great digital cameras for their price. Really, the images I've seen recorded on the HVX in HD looked basically like anything I've seen in the movie theaters. The DVX is pretty wonderful too, the 24 progressive really helps the film look. I've always felt that if I was to invest in a professional camcorder I'd probably put my money on the DVX, since HVX HD footage takes a really good computer to edit and lots of space to store.

Lots of people are putting on 35mm adapters on their HVX and DVX camcorders which produce some really bad ass looking footage. It gives the cameras this super film like depth of field, which is pretty nice and looks loads more professional that you would think it would.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=12
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=57

Both those forums have test footage from various people using their DVXs and HVXs. Check it out and you can see the footage that these two cameras can make.

Logged

pburn

#7 June 30, 2008, 04:31:13 pm

What, me worry?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 1752

I can't afford any of this shit, especially not a 35mm adaptor..................... a man of my talents needs talented equipment.........

Logged

Lyndon

#8 June 30, 2008, 05:09:15 pm

Captalist pig :|
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: 711

Get a cheap ass super 8 camera. Buy 3 rolls of Kodak film that come with development for about £75 and that will give you about 7.5 mins of footage shot at 24 fps.

This is how you can probably get the best looking results for cheap, but probably making one short film will cost as much as a DV camera, but will look so much better.

I'm planning a short film at the moment done this way. You would have to record sound externally through a portable recorder or something though (or shoot a silent film) as they don't produce super 8 film stock with sound anymore. When you're finished and you have the film developed, you will have to pay to get it telecined (maybe an extra £50?) This will convert it to digital at high def so you can edit on your computer and sync up your sound and add extra sound and music etc...

I still think HD doesn't match up to film stock, it just has that 'classic' look and your film will look 10 times better than any DV imo

Logged

Blitzen

#9 June 30, 2008, 05:41:12 pm

some sort of land-cow
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 935

While we are talking about cameras and film stock, is the development process for 8mm or 16mm film stock any different than regular C-41 chemistry for photographic film?

outerspacepotatoman

Logged

Lyndon

#10 June 30, 2008, 05:55:43 pm

Captalist pig :|
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: 711

super 8mm comes in cartridges, which are really easy to load into the camera. The only place in the world you can get them developed is in switzeland I think (lol). usually the place you buy the film from, they will sort all that out for you and send it to the kodak HQ etc.

I don't know about self development I guess it comes down to the same principle, but I think it's probably best to get it done professionally

Logged

Alec

#11 June 30, 2008, 09:51:36 pm

Watch out Kitty! The room turned sideways!
Group: Member
Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 1894

My camera uses a VHS-C haha. But as long as the tape's not fucked up it gets pretty good quality and i use my computers for any options, so i don't see what the big deal it with OPTIONS (assuming you mean like filters and lenses and shit). and as far as self-development goes (if you go with super 8mm), assuming you have a decent capture card and some way to plug the camera in, you should be able to capture it to your comp but CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I'M NOT VERY CAMERA-SAVVY.

Logged

jumar1987

#12 July 01, 2008, 04:37:54 am

Game Programming Fighter/Lover
Group: Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 80

Quote from: Lyndon on June 30, 2008, 05:09:15 pm

I still think HD doesn't match up to film stock, it just has that 'classic' look and your film will look 10 times better than any DV imo

Film is way more complicated than digital in many ways. I can't particular say much about super 8 footage, but when I shot 16mm film for school there was a lot of speculation involved, especially since you couldn't really see what you were shooting and the only way to make sure you had the right exposure was to measure the light with a light meter. You also had to make sure you were getting the proper film to shoot with depending on the lighting situation, different films and filters were needed depending on whether the light was coming from the sun outside or from a light fixture. It was just a big pain in the ass really. I can't really imagine someone investing in expensive film rolls and a film camera and lenses unless they had some previous experience with it or they just have some money to burn. Of course, if you want a film with a "super 8" style then I think it would certainly be worth the investment, if the film calms for it.

Anyway, I wouldn't discredit DV so quickly, as both DV and film can look ridiculously beautiful, but if its properly shot. One somewhat famous example (on dvxuser.com at least) of great DV cinematography is this short film, SIMILIO shot with a DVX-100 and Cinemek35 lens adapter.

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/similo._english.h264.mov

Logged

Shepperd

#13 July 01, 2008, 05:28:12 am

MUSULMAEN
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 2618

get a 8 mm

instant vintage, dawg

Logged

Roman

#14 July 01, 2008, 07:26:22 am

Gameboy Advanced Member
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Apr 9, 2002
Posts: 1460

Quote from: jumar1987 on July 01, 2008, 04:37:54 am

Film is way more complicated than digital in many ways. I can't particular say much about super 8 footage, but when I shot 16mm film for school there was a lot of speculation involved, especially since you couldn't really see what you were shooting and the only way to make sure you had the right exposure was to measure the light with a light meter. You also had to make sure you were getting the proper film to shoot with depending on the lighting situation, different films and filters were needed depending on whether the light was coming from the sun outside or from a light fixture. It was just a big pain in the ass really. I can't really imagine someone investing in expensive film rolls and a film camera and lenses unless they had some previous experience with it or they just have some money to burn. Of course, if you want a film with a "super 8" style then I think it would certainly be worth the investment, if the film calms for it.

Anyway, I wouldn't discredit DV so quickly, as both DV and film can look ridiculously beautiful, but if its properly shot. One somewhat famous example (on dvxuser.com at least) of great DV cinematography is this short film, SIMILIO shot with a DVX-100 and Cinemek35 lens adapter.

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/similo._english.h264.mov

Wow, that looks impressive. Can you explain to me what the Cinemek35 lens adapter is, exactly? I tried typing it in google and literally got four results, none of which were very helpful.

Logged

Lyndon

#15 July 01, 2008, 04:26:34 pm

Captalist pig :|
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: 711

Quote from: jumar1987 on July 01, 2008, 04:37:54 am

Film is way more complicated than digital in many ways. I can't particular say much about super 8 footage, but when I shot 16mm film for school there was a lot of speculation involved, especially since you couldn't really see what you were shooting and the only way to make sure you had the right exposure was to measure the light with a light meter. You also had to make sure you were getting the proper film to shoot with depending on the lighting situation, different films and filters were needed depending on whether the light was coming from the sun outside or from a light fixture. It was just a big pain in the ass really. I can't really imagine someone investing in expensive film rolls and a film camera and lenses unless they had some previous experience with it or they just have some money to burn. Of course, if you want a film with a "super 8" style then I think it would certainly be worth the investment, if the film calms for it.

Anyway, I wouldn't discredit DV so quickly, as both DV and film can look ridiculously beautiful, but if its properly shot. One somewhat famous example (on dvxuser.com at least) of great DV cinematography is this short film, SIMILIO shot with a DVX-100 and Cinemek35 lens adapter.

http://www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/similo._english.h264.mov

yeah you're definitley right. Film is so much harder to work with than digital for so many reasons and it's probably not the best road to go down if you don't know exactly what you are doing from a photography point of view. However, I still favour the look of film and if you research into the right film stock, how to use a light meter, recording audio externally etc then film is better imo. I mean modern day films pretty much all still use film (excluding one or two). I'm not dissing HD, I think that it can look great (Cloverfield looked really awesome), but you have to spend a shit load of the camera. A super 8 camera is dirt cheap, it's the film that costs loads

. I reckon you could make a short film for under £250 including everything though. That's not a bad price for something that is gonna look kickass and not 'youtube' quality.

Logged

pburn

#16 July 01, 2008, 05:07:12 pm

What, me worry?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 1752

Go digital, there is absolutely no reason why you need to go film. Film is much more complicated and it will get in the way of your creative vision.

Logged

jumar1987

#17 July 01, 2008, 06:26:16 pm

Game Programming Fighter/Lover
Group: Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 80

Cinemek is a 35mm lens adapter for digital cameras. It works by allowing you to attach a variety of lenses to the end of your digital camera, giving you more control of the depth of field than the stock lenses for the camera would. I've never used one so I don't want to expand to much on it, because I don't know to much about it. I know that there a variety of 35mm adapters available commercially and that some people actually put them together themselves. There's also a bunch of nuances to the footage, like it being recorded upside down, the lenses need to take in more light, stuff like that. Here's a forum with more information on them.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=113

Here is also a forum on the site which has a lot of footage from the DVX, some with adapters and some without. Some of the footage is really good, but some of it can look terrible too. Good looking footage usually depends on getting the right exposure, framing properly, color correcting, etc. But here is the site with more user posted footage:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=12

I haven't bought a DVX or anything, I've only used it on some shoots, but I've always felt that if I had the money I'd probably get it and trick it out. It's a pretty expensive investment though. Most people I know who have it are videographers who make a living using it so they make a return eventually if they work enough, you know?

Logged