MiniDV/16

Capture hardware, software and techniques

Moderators: Admin, Moderator Team

Post Reply
User avatar
DEDFX
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: eastern MA
Contact:

MiniDV/16

Post by DEDFX » Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:38 am

Sorry if theres a bunch of threads like this...
I was going to get a 16mm cam but found out the price of the film and getting it processed (in the thousands for a 30 min movie) so I guess I'm getting a high end DV cam.

Whats a good cam (don't have to get it now maybe the prices will come down) thats below 2 thousand and has 3 CCD's?

User avatar
Trochaic
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:50 pm

Post by Trochaic » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:31 am

If you can wait a bit, you can find a nice GL2 on Ebay for under 2000. I'd say that's the best your going to get under 2k. It's a shame to hear your giving up on the 16mm :( .

User avatar
DEDFX
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: eastern MA
Contact:

Post by DEDFX » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:46 am

how do you get by with all the money for film/processing and how much is it for you?

User avatar
Trochaic
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:50 pm

Post by Trochaic » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:05 am

As of the moment I have not shot any 16mm but what I do for super 8 (and what other have people done for 16mm) is call kodak and order the film straight from the factory and ask for the student discount. You can get processing done at about 10cents per feet.

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:50 am

Wierd. 35mm is like $5 a foot to develop. :?

User avatar
DEDFX
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: eastern MA
Contact:

Post by DEDFX » Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:54 pm

5$ a foot!! wow, thats only a second or not even..

New question.
I am seeing 3CCD cameras but they are not the high end ones that are large, they are a little smaller. Are any one of those worth buying from $500-$700?? I was impressed with 3CCD's but each one only has like 230.. Anyone know of any good ones?

User avatar
UFProductions
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:12 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Post by UFProductions » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:41 pm

DEDFX wrote:5$ a foot!! wow, thats only a second or not even..
Actually, thats about 1/25 of a second.
Losing consciousness,
in the arms of an angel,
I find only peace.

User avatar
DEDFX
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: eastern MA
Contact:

Post by DEDFX » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:51 pm

The newer DVD cameras have 3000K total pixels, 20480K effective which is alot. Can I upload the footage on my computer and edit it at all? Whats the downside to these cameras?

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:31 pm

UFProductions wrote:
DEDFX wrote:5$ a foot!! wow, thats only a second or not even..
Actually, thats about 1/25 of a second.
lol how did you figure that? A second worth in 35mm is around 3 feet. 1/25 a foot mean each frame would have to be over a foot long!!! It's the same stuff you use in a 35mm still camera. :wink:

User avatar
UFProductions
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:12 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Post by UFProductions » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:06 pm

Ha Ha! Oh man my math skills aren't up to snuff anymore. Good catch. Imagine the aspect ratio for foot wide frames, you'd need a BIG screen.
Losing consciousness,
in the arms of an angel,
I find only peace.

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:56 pm

The Canon GL2 is a good fit for your budget. Another option is the Panasonic PV-GS500 ). It's 3 chip and runs around $1000-1100. Here's another great choice, Panasonic AG-DVC30 which runs around $1600 from http://www.bhphotovideo.com.

Remember to save back money for a tripod, case, spare batteries and a shotgun mic. That could add up to $500.

Here's a little article I wrote which might be helpful: http://www.scottspears.net/buy1stcam.htm

Hope you find it helpful.

Scott[/url]
Last edited by scottspears on Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:01 pm

Regarding this comment: "35mm is like $5 a foot to develop."

I don't know where you found this figure, but it's only .10-.15 a foot to process 35mm film, depending on what lab you use. The film will cost between .38 - .55 a foot.

All this said, film is still more expensive than film, but Super-16 and 35mm images are still superior to most video images out there.

Scott
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:35 pm

scottspears wrote:All this said, film is still more expensive than film, but Super-16 and 35mm images are still superior to most video images out there.
Hence why you get a nice video camera to start. ;) Many HD systems I've seen compare extraordinarily well against 35mm plates. The digital age will eventually prevail!

Not to mention, digital video is a lot easier to edit than film.

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:49 am

HD is making gains, but it ain't there yet. Someday it will eclipse film. I'd guess on a mass scale about 7-10 years. Yes, video is easier, but not better.

Scott
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:37 pm

In most cases, easier is better. Especially when time is money.

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:49 pm

Easier is easier, not always better. I can shoot with no lights and it will be easier, but not better. I can use the on camera mic which would be easier, but not as good as a nice shotgun mic. If you want to boil everything down to time and money, you can do the easy thing and shoot some video format which faster in many ways, espeically in post. (If I have an 1st assistant camera, I can shoot film as fast as video.) If you want to make things of quality, then you strive to use the best tools available. In this case, 35mm film is still the highest quallity tool for gathering imagery.

Scott
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:25 am

We was talking about video capture! Not lighting nor sound! Make a relavent comparison. :P

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:41 pm

Ok, I was just addressing your comment, "easier is better." That statement isn't always true.

I've been shooting film for over 20 years and video almost nearly as long and I know that to make video look great I have to do a lot more work than when shooting film. I have to watch my contrast levels and adjust the detail settings to massage the image when shooting video. With film, I might pop on a filter at most, set up the lights and shoot.

Now I have years of experience, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get when shooting film. If you're a newbie to shooting, it's intimidating, but if you're serious about making good images, you'll do your homework. Now adays, it seems like a lot of young filmmakes want to just point and shoot because it's easy. It's all a home movie/camcorder mentality. They don't want to think about what it would take to make good looking images and later wonder why their movies don't look like what the pay $10 to see at the theatre. Quality filmmaking is not a point and shoot game.

Again, easier is just that, easier, not always better. If you got into filmmaking think it would be easy, then you're in for a world of hurt.

Scott
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

User avatar
Epsilon
Forum Master
Forum Master
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:13 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

Post by Epsilon » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:32 pm

Okay I see what you're saying now. I agree with you. My perspective on it was you can't always do what's best or "right". Often shortcuts have to be made in order to finish a project on time or when money's a serious issue. I wasn't saying easy overall, just in certain places, like perhaps using HD over film.

Actually, most people will never catch on to understanding how to make a "good" film. It takes talent and experience of the art. I'm fine with those that do not wish to strive. I know what I want out of filmmaking and there should be a personal goal for everyone. Amateur films don't need to be excellent, but how much is one going to get out of it? Professional industry is a whole different ballpark. In order to get there, you gotta have "it". :D (and luck)

Hey I just got back from a lecture with director Mel Stuart. That was fun. :lol:

scottspears
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Post by scottspears » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:07 pm

I understand that not all folks can afford to shoot film. (I've shot over 10 DV features and one one on HD.) I think HD and DV can be great tools, in the right hands, to get movies made. I guess being a DP, I want people to strive for the best image quality and I feel film is the best right now. But if it's between shooting HD or DV or not shooting anything because you can't afford film, then I say shoot HD or DV and try to make it looks as good as you can.

Thanks,

Scott
Scott Spears
Emmy Winning DP
www.scottspears.net

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests