I need fodder...

Started by Witkacy, October 22, 2003, 05:21:49 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Witkacy

October 22, 2003, 05:21:49 PM
No soft advice...
What's better...
Canon GL1 or 2
Sony TRV950
Canon xl1
Need real cold hard facts...
Or other cameras not mentioned....
Or price comparison...
Let me know....

Recce

#1
October 23, 2003, 07:32:07 PM
XL1. I had the pleasure of shooting a project with one once. I still have wet dreams about that night. Its fairly inexpensive, depending what your budget looks like. You get focus controls like a film camera, allowing for kick ass rack focuses. You can play with your depth of field and stuff, too. I was shooting in a fairly low light situation, but it compensated very well and gave me some awesome, crisp and clear footage. I find the GL2 is too small. When you get fairly professional, I think you should have something you can really hold onto.
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                        cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

Weak2ndAct

#2
October 24, 2003, 01:29:25 AM
Agreed, the XL1 rocks.  A friend was looking into buying a camera and looked at everyone imaginable, this is the one he settled on.  Well worth the money and it can do some great shit.  I wish I had my own :cry:

mutinyco

#3
October 24, 2003, 08:33:28 AM
Panasonic DVX100. It's a better camera I think than the Canons. But I think we already have several threads about this. I'm too lazy to post links though. I also prefer the Sony PD-150.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Recce

#4
October 24, 2003, 10:34:53 AM
I'm not sure about the exact price of the pd-150, but I'm assuming its considerably less then the xl1. I've worked with the pd-150, and its a strong piece of equipenmnt all on its own. Its not an xl1, but its not that far down the line. If your budget is limited, but still fairly large, I think the pd-150 could make you happy, as well.
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                        cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

mutinyco

#5
October 24, 2003, 11:10:08 AM
Yeah, I don't like the XL-1. I've used it. I think it's wildly overrated. Lot's of features, but so what -- all I need the camera for is an image capture. I record sound separately. There's actually very little price difference between the PD-150 and the XL-1 depending where you look. A few hundred bucks. Also, the Sony and the Panasonic wave an LCD screen that displays in 16:9.

I've also compared 'em side by side and honestly, the XL-1 was immediately descarded. It's picture quality was the least desirable by far of the 3. It's soft and warm. If you like that, go for it. I preferred the Sony and Panasonic, both a little cooler and crisper. Plus the Panasonic does 24p.

The thing to remember, however, is that mini-DV IS NOT professional. These are all consumer models we're talking about. They're not pro equipment.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

aclockworkjj

#6
October 24, 2003, 12:06:54 PM
Quote from: mutinycoYeah, I don't like the XL-1. I've used it. I think it's wildly overrated. Lot's of features, but so what -- all I need the camera for is an image capture. I record sound separately. There's actually very little price difference between the PD-150 and the XL-1 depending where you look. A few hundred bucks. Also, the Sony and the Panasonic wave an LCD screen that displays in 16:9.

I've also compared 'em side by side and honestly, the XL-1 was immediately descarded. It's picture quality was the least desirable by far of the 3. It's soft and warm. If you like that, go for it. I preferred the Sony and Panasonic, both a little cooler and crisper. Plus the Panasonic does 24p.

The thing to remember, however, is that mini-DV IS NOT professional. These are all consumer models we're talking about. They're not pro equipment.
the xl 1 has 16x9 guides though built into it...better than nothing I guess.  I haven't played with it...but the panasonic has had me drooling for sum time now.

SoNowThen

#7
October 24, 2003, 12:14:10 PM
XL1S has the best lens control (if you get the manual lens).
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

#8
October 24, 2003, 03:38:24 PM
Anybody know whether Sony still uses Zeiss lenses?
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Witkacy

#9
October 24, 2003, 04:38:28 PM
I'm very old school... so I'm looking at a cam with great lens control... most mini-DV's I've seen have too great a depth of field ( the lens is too small).  You all talk about the PD-150 or XL-1.  I'm not looking for slick extras just real quality. Let me know.

TheVoiceOfNick

#10
October 24, 2003, 06:22:47 PM
I reccommend you get the Canon ZR-20... it's really old school, and doesn't have any bells and whistles... in fact it doesn't have any... the sound sucks, the color sucks, the manual controls are joke... it'd be perfect!

Seriously though... great shorts and features have been shot with many types of DV cameras... it really doesn't matter what camera you use as much as the quality of the story... I can watch stuff made with toy video cameras (there was a model in the 80's that could record on audio cassettes) if the story is interesting... but you can shoot on the most expensive 35mm or HD cameras and I won't watch it if its just "thumb twiddling"... give me something exciting, and i won't care what its shot on...

And by the way, i've shot many things on low end Canon cameras (i've also shot -a lot- on high end equipment).

Nick

mutinyco

#11
October 24, 2003, 07:27:45 PM
It's not mini-DV that gives you great depth of field due to the size of the lens. It's the digital format. Even if you were shooting a larger format like HD 24p, you'd need to go up one size on each lens to approximate 35mm. To compensate simply use your eyes. But go will the Sony or the Panasonic, in my opinion.

Of course, they're in the $3000 range. If that's out of the picture the thing to look for is that it's a 3-chip camera.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Witkacy

#12
October 27, 2003, 05:21:26 PM
Appreciate y'all your input... first... Mini Dv's have TOO MUCH depth of field... the lens is so  bloody small that it has no warmth (think of vinyl cmpared to CD).  I've worked in film since my student days.. some years...always 16 with 120mm zoom... since I'm switching to mini-Dv or Dv for quick shooting but decent image... I just want to know if there's a camera out there with decent image quality and a decent lens... can I shoot a well lit M.S. without having the background in focus.  That's it.

mutinyco

#13
October 28, 2003, 11:39:24 AM
Like I said, digital will inherently give you a greater depth of focus. There's very little you can do about that. I've done close-ups totally zoomed in and the background is still visible. You seem to prefer long lenses with a short depth. You won't get that from consumer DV -- not unless you want to spend an obscene amount of money to buy lens attachments. Don't worry about those things so much and just focus on the story and acting. I think we've mentioned enough good cameras here for you to get started.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Witkacy

#14
October 28, 2003, 04:59:48 PM
That's all I want to know... I'm not a film-tech looking to cover story in image. I've doctored stories for 10 years... just looking for a bit of camera advice for my side projects since if I ask anybody in my film world they just laugh about DV...
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions