I think I'm gonna pick up the GL2 soon. I want the dvx100, but I've seen the GL2 for as low as $1400 and the lowest I've seen the dvx is $2100. After debating, I decided that I'd rather go with the cheaper cam since I'm very very new to this.
So my question is, what do I need (specifically) to compliment the cam? Do i need a wide angle lens or does it shoot in 16:9 already?(the canon site states it shoots in 16:9, but some sites dont specify this) What kind of UV/filters do i need, etc? I'm not familiar with which brands are good and which are shit, so this would help tremendously. Thanks.
Also, which editing program is recommended for a PC? (I have a VAIO notebook) Thanks again.
Adobe Premier Pro is a pretty good editing program.
And if you're gonna go with the Canon GL2, why not go for the Canon filter set? I have them, and they're decent.
Personally I dont think a wide angle lens for the GL2 is owrth it. I have GL2 and its a very good camera, very versatile and I'm glad I chose to start off with it. It doesn't shoot 16:9, although it has 'fake widescreen' which I dont suggest using (better to just letterbox in post).
It has a built in ND filter, I'm not sure how strong it is but its on Canon's website. Strong enough to get good results on a sunny day without having to close the iris that much. I recommend getting a polarising filter which will increase saturation quite a bit (especially to get some nice blue skys). I got mine from Tiffen who do a great range of proffessional filters for prosumer DV cameras, although there are cheaper brands.
I really think premiere is a great way to start on editing but obviously at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you use. You're aren't really going to be doing anything beyond straight cuts and dissolves. Once you get bored with Premiere you can always jump up to AvidDvExpress, but obviously they'll be a big price jump there, too.
My university have just got a load of Dvx100's on the cheap as I believe Panasonic are releasing an updated model with a lot of fixes. Might want to watch for a price drop but at the end of the day its not gonna get you much closer to the film look than the GL2 and a bit of post production tweaking(although I've yet to use it).
Good luck.
Thanks guys. Anyone else have some good advice?
Love the new avatar btw edlum
This may be of help:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/articles/topfive.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/index.php
How much will I be looking at for a real good wide angle lens? The site i wanna buy my camera on has a "Pro" wide angle lens converter for $700 and that seems high knowing i've seen others go for only $100. I dont know the brand name.
canon's optics and chips are fucking trash -- buy a sony if youre gonna buy one
sony's the best way to go. and if you're going to go into combat with it, take a panasonic
panasonic dvx-100 or sony vx2000???
What brand wide angle lens? should I get a 16:9 lens instead?
2x telephoto lens worth it?
What brand filters?
Warranty?
Thanks.
i'm not an expert, but i'm pretty sure that a 16:9 lens isn't going to make a difference, because you're still capturing your image on a 4:3 chip. you'd need a 16:9 chip to get true 16:9.
In fact the anamorphic lense does make a difference by squizing the horizontal resolution and stretching out vertical so on play back you get a good 1.78:1 image. Now if by true you mean 2.35:1 then no anamorphic adapter can come close. But keep in mind a 35mm film frame is 4:3 so this is done optically. What we are doing here is just squizing/ stretching the picture so it can fit on our 4:3 chip. I would definitely own one of those along with the dvx100, some legs, a good fluid head, homemade jib and some cheap lights.
Specs for homemade jib, please.
Well i have a few pages you might be interested in.
http://www.studio1productions.com/dv_jib.htm
http://www.habbycam.com/superjib.html
Take a look at the design, seems not very complex. I am thinking about giving it a shot after i get my tripod and legs. There are home made tutorials that are out there but i seem to prefer the cable version where you can control both the camera tilt and the general height of the jib. Have yet to see a homemade cable operated jib but my search has not been that deep.
Some links on homemade versions
http://homebuiltstabilizers.com/
http://www.jorenclark.com/studentfilms/jib/jib.html
Don't be fooled by sites that say their camera's shoot in 16:9. They don't really. It basically adds black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, without giving any more space on the sides. Don't let that be a deciding factor. If you want black bars jsut for the sake of having black bars, you can add them in post. Once again, the Sony PD150's are pretty good. This is what I use in school and I'm impressed every time. So long as you know how to use them.
Quote from: RecceDon't be fooled by sites that say their camera's shoot in 16:9. They don't really. It basically adds black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, without giving any more space on the sides. Don't let that be a deciding factor. If you want black bars jsut for the sake of having black bars, you can add them in post. Once again, the Sony PD150's are pretty good. This is what I use in school and I'm impressed every time. So long as you know how to use them.
Actually.. thats incorrect.. while it's not physically squishing the image.. it still isn't just "adding black bars"
But in any case... 16:9 on those cameras = lame
The letterboxed footage comes from the cropping of the frame not adding the black bars onto the frame if that was the disagreement about. Some cams in order to shoot 16:9 use anamorphic way of stretching the image vertically of which results i don't know. Some letterbox the field of view cutting down around 25% of the resolution which if you are doing an extremely wide shot might not matter but with the answering shots would be a critical maneuver. Though the absolutely true wide angle(on a prosumer scale) would probably come from a cam with wider ccds such as pdx10 now if that unit had progressive adjustments i would definitely own. Wonder how an anamorphic would behave with such cam. I would assume the picture would be prolonged horizontally by squizing more in then the native chips in that case you would end up with something close to cine screen but still ending up with the same 530 lines of resolution. Maybe if you letterbox that wider footage while shooting in 1.78:1 it would cut down on all of the software problems. Any thoughts?
Thanks for the input and thanks for those links warmstepvision, I'll check them out. I ended buying a Sony dcr-vx2100. I've only had it for 2 days so I'm still just fucking around with it, but so far it seems like a pretty good first camera. Yeah the 16:9 just adds black bars, so you actually get less image, but I'm still waiting for my wide angle lens and I'll see how that works out.
Again thanks, any advice is appreciated as I am totally fucking clueless to the whole digital filmmaking process. Any books that are recommended? Peace.
Site www.filmmaking.net has a good collection of books you might want to take a look at.
Try something by Blain Brown he is pretty technical, to the point where it reaches chemistry and mathematics.