The Video Camera Thread

[jfriend]

I'm looking to extend my image capture from photos to video and I'm pretty uneducated about the video choices out there today. I think I want a hard disk-based HD video camera. I want quality so I'm willing to pay and I don't need something super small, but I doubt I'd want want one of the larger pro-style cameras either.

This Sony HDR-SR7 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000PQJGFO/ref=ord_cart_shr/105-3487761-6730061?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance) is the kind of camera I was considering (10x zoom, AVCHD format, 60GB hard drive):

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31i5eQwT6tL._SS400_.jpg

When I looked into this a few months ago, it seemed like the newest HD hard-disk based cameras recorded in AVCHD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Codec_High_Definition) which is the H.264 video codec. But, when I talked to some videographers, they were skeptical about the ability of these cameras to record this format to hard disk in real-time and have good quality (they still shoot cameras that record to tape).

Further, when I last looked into it, it seemed like many of the programs one might use to manipulate your videos didn't support H.264 yet. I was wondering if it's still a bit too early for this format or if there are better choices?

So, what would folks recommend for a quality, HD, hard-disk-based video camera? For now, my main target for these videos would be viewing on my HD TV at home and sharing with some family members on HD disks.

Once I get HD videos onto the PC hard disk, I'm also wondering how to best display them on my HDTV (at the other end of the house). I own a Tivo Series 3 (but don't know if that can do HD video from my PC or not).

[wxwax]

I chose the Canon HV20.

Two reasons: Better picture quality (according to the reviews.) Picture quality rules. I'll put up with an inferior interface and fewer features for better video, since I use it for work.

Tape, not disk. Reason? Disc technology not mature. Tape a known and safe factor. We have tape machines at work.

My next camera will probably have flash or disk memory, because it's so convenient for importing. But not this go 'round.

FWIW, I'm pleased with my selection. Downsides are it's plasticky, build doesn't inspire confidence. Images need saturation etc. boosting. Upsides are excellent image quality given the size of the lens, good low light performance, and enough manual controls to allow shallow depth of field and a degree of iris control.

[Baldy]

Wxwax is far more currrent than me and he does it for a living. I only shoot grandkids.

However, I hate tape... It's just so slow to access and such a pain when there's a time code glitch. I'm determined to go hard disk.

Also, I love the idea of h.264. The potential of it boggles for viewing online and on small devices. I'm really interested in this camera or at least its potential.

[jfriend]

I chose the Canon HV20.

Two reasons: Better picture quality (according to the reviews.) Picture quality rules. I'll put up with an inferior interface and fewer features for better video, since I use it for work.

Tape, not disk. Reason? Disc technology not mature. Tape a known and safe factor. We have tape machines at work.

My next camera will probably have flash or disk memory, because it's so convenient for importing. But not this go 'round.

FWIW, I'm pleased with my selection. Downsides are it's plasticky, build doesn't inspire confidence. Images need saturation etc. boosting. Upsides are excellent image quality given the size of the lens, good low light performance, and enough manual controls to allow shallow depth of field and a degree of iris control.

Thanks for the thoughts. This sounds consistent with what the videogrpahers I talked to said, but I really couldn't tell if they were just saying that because they were comfortable with the technology they'd had for years or whether it was real. I remember how audiphiles poo pooed CDs when they first came out and then later other forms of digital audio. Some of of the early digital audio criticism was real but much of it was not. I wasn't sure which was the case with the hard-disk, digital video skepticism.

Can you point me to any of those reviews that compare the video quality of the HD hard disk cameras vs. HD tape cameras? I agree that quality is the point of an HD camera in the first place. I also figure that hard-disk technology will be there at some point (if it isn't already) and I just have to figure out the right time to jump in.

[jfriend]

Wxwax is far more currrent than me and he does it for a living. I only shoot grandkids.

However, I hate tape... It's just so slow to access and such a pain when there's a time code glitch. I'm determined to go hard disk.

Also, I love the idea of h.264. The potential of it boggles for viewing online and on small devices. I'm really interested in this camera or at least its potential.

I really, really want to go with digital storage (probably hard disk), for a whole bunch of reasons (not the least of which is random access to the clips in the camera). I'm just trying to figure out if the technology is ready yet.

h.264 sounds interesting to me too. I found out that my Tivo Series 3 uses h.264 for it's own HD storage so hopefully, I could use my Tivo as my interface to my TV too. h.264 is also supported in both Blu-ray and HD-DVD players. Adobe announced beta support for it in their flash player, etc... Now, just need to find a good camera that produces quality h.264 video that won't be obsolete in 3 months.

[wxwax]

Tape is a dinosaur, no question.

But it's also dead reliable.

I understand completely the appeal of non-linear and don't blame you for making it a priority.

I'm willing to wait a generation. I'm also probably willing to buy my next camera a lot sooner than you are. :D

[wildviper]

Two weeks ago or so I did this research for a friend of mine who was getting a good deal on a Hard Drive based Sony videocamera.

Here are some points from the email I sent him. Please note, if I am referring to specific features, it is based on the model he had given me. General ideas should be good though.

Here are some sacrifices/points that you need to be aware of:

2. The battery life is 90 minutes in real-world usage. Not sure what others are at.


4. The videos are compressed already when saved to your HD. A little loss of quality happens there. If you want to further edit, more quality loss will occur. If you are like me and need sharpness, this maybe a concern for you.

5. By the way, if your Harddrive is full on this camera, where are you going to store the captured video? Give you an idea of what I am talking about:

- Full camera means 60 Gigs of storage space you need. All regular DVDs take upto 4gigs. So you will need 15 DVDs to burn. Maybe not a big deal, but something to be aware of.
- Alternatively you can buy a external HD for your laptops and transfer the stuff there. Remember, 1 hour of video equals 4gigs on this camera.
- All of the above will take lots of time. a 1 hour video will take 1 hour to transfer to computer.

6. Harddrives can and do fail. You have to remember that. If you drop the camera, there are shock absorbers, but obviously they can protect against all drops. You would loose everything on the HD if something like that happens.

- Also, HD can crash without warning and without any rhyme or reason. Like my recent experience of 2 HDs crashing at same time.

7. Night time video isn't that good. Most cameras are lacking here anyways. Just a FYI.

I think of all the things above, I would be concerned about HD crashing and storage. With tapes, I don't have to transfer it to a computer or DVDs to be able to be ready for next shoot. I can just leave it on the tape and buy a new blank tape. Tapes are safe against drops as well.

Some food for thought.

[DavidTO]

It takes an hour to transfer 4GB of data? :ear

[jfriend]

All of the above will take lots of time. a 1 hour video will take 1 hour to transfer to computer.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts from the prior investigation, but I'm not understanding some of your conclusions.

I don't know what these cameras are actually delivering in terms of transfer rate, but Firewire 400 is capable of 400 Mbit/s which is 50MB/s (divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes) which could transfer 4GB of video in 4*1024/50 = 81 seconds. Firewire 800 is capable of going almost twice as fast. Even if the camera delivered only the slowest Firewire 400 rate which is 100 Mbit/s, you could transfer 4GB of video in 5-1/2 minutes.

A good USB 2.0 implementation apparently does about 30MB/s which could transfer 4GB of video in just a little over 2 minutes.

Going by the specs on the Sony HDR-SR7, one hour of their HD video would be about 7.5GB at the highest HD quality level (they claim 8 hours of capacity with 60GB of storage at their XP quality level which is the highest quality).

So, even if we got half of a good throughput, we'd be talking about 4-6 minuutes to transfer 4GB of video or maybe 8-12 minutes to transfer an hour of max quality HD video.

These are very, very different transfer times than you seem to relate. Any idea on why the disconnect? You say an hour to transfer an hour of video? Isn't that what happens with tape, but not with hard disks?

[wildviper]

You maybe right. Since I do not have a HD camera, my experience has been with DV Tapes. I guess I forgot that with Hard Drives, you could potentially pick up the file and copy it over.

Ooops, my mistake..so ignore the time transfer bit. :bow

[claudermilk]

Wow, what a timely thread. :scratch I'm just starting to look at video cameras again. My trusty old Sony Handycam was on loan witha friend whose home got burglarized. Guess what one of the things that disappeared was? :cry Eventually there will be an insurance payout & I get to upgrade finally (I was waiting for the thing to break, but it seemed to be one of the last truly reliable Sony products...).

Debating between tape & HDD--the reliability of tape is attractive, but I worry about getting in the same boat with the new tape as I was with the old 8mm--no place to get it; I stocked up when Tower closed down the local store & that was the last place I could get tapes. Once those were used up the camera was slated to become a doorstop. HDD is attractive to the simplicity of use & lack of need for tapes, but I do worry a bit about data storage & transfer times.

HD would be nice, but I'm not sure if that wil be in the budget. Overall I'm so far out of the loop on these things I don't even know what specs to look for & what would be better.:dunno

[wxwax]

FWIW, I find flash drives a lot more attractive then hard drives.

Less fragile, good storage, replaceable, known technology - what's not to like?

Prosumer cameras are already using them. Seems like the hardiest solution to me.

The new Sony professional camera will apparently burn to a disc somewhat like Blu-ray. Interchangeable, of course.

[wxwax]

My choice in the $1000 HD video cameras was picked (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Selects-2007-33545.htm) #1.

The Canon HV20.

[TylerW]

Debating between tape & HDD--the reliability of tape is attractive, but I worry about getting in the same boat with the new tape as I was with the old 8mm--no place to get it; I stocked up when Tower closed down the local store & that was the last place I could get tapes. Once those were used up the camera was slated to become a doorstop. HDD is attractive to the simplicity of use & lack of need for tapes, but I do worry a bit about data storage & transfer times.

For what its worth, consumer grade HD (Or HDV, as its properly known) records onto standard DV tapes. You can buy 'em at grocery and thrift stores and the tape format doesn't seem to be going anywhere in a real hurry. They're reasonably robust too - if you see the format as a write once, read many medium and keep them in a place reasonably protected from magnetic interference, the signal on these tapes can have a very long shelf life, at least 7-8 years.

[jfriend]

For what its worth, consumer grade HD (Or HDV, as its properly known) records onto standard DV tapes. You can buy 'em at grocery and thrift stores and the tape format doesn't seem to be going anywhere in a real hurry. They're reasonably robust too - if you see the format as a write once, read many medium and keep them in a place reasonably protected from magnetic interference, the signal on these tapes can have a very long shelf life, at least 7-8 years.

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?

[wxwax]

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?
Tape transfer is real time. 30=30.

I'm not a technical guy, but I believe all you need is the right codec to read the camera's information. You can make the files into any format your software is capable of, once you've imported it.

[TylerW]

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?

You'll use editing software, either your own or whatever came with the camera, or even what came with the computer (iMovie/Windows Movie Maker) via a FireWire interface. Capturing the video to hard disk is realtime, so 30 mins takes 30 mins. Standerd Def MiniDV goes into a DV Codec .avi file on a PC, or a similarly codeced Quicktime on the Mac. As for HDV, on a PC it gets handled a few different ways, usually govenred by software. Usually it gets converted to mpeg-2, sometimes h.264. I'm not familiar with HDV on a Mac from a technical standpoint, but I imagine it does soemthing similar, but in a quicktime flavor.

Hope that helps.

[jfriend]

You'll use editing software, either your own or whatever came with the camera, or even what came with the computer (iMovie/Windows Movie Maker) via a FireWire interface. Capturing the video to hard disk is realtime, so 30 mins takes 30 mins. Standerd Def MiniDV goes into a DV Codec .avi file on a PC, or a similarly codeced Quicktime on the Mac. As for HDV, on a PC it gets handled a few different ways, usually govenred by software. Usually it gets converted to mpeg-2, sometimes h.264. I'm not familiar with HDV on a Mac from a technical standpoint, but I imagine it does soemthing similar, but in a quicktime flavor.

Hope that helps.

My understanding is that the latest hard disk HD video cameras (like the Sony HDR-SR7 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000PQJGFO/ref=ord_cart_shr/105-3487761-6730061?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance)) record on their own hard disk in h.264 so when you transfer to the PC, there's no conversion necessary, you just do a file transfer in h.264 and that makes the transfer much, much faster both because you're reading off a hard disk and because there's no re-encoding needed. Then, editing programs can just deal with the h.264 file directly. At least that's the promise of the latest technology - I don't know if the promise is fully delivered yet.

[wxwax]

To load video from a tape... you have to play the tape. Real time. No other way.

To load video from a hard drive/flash drive, you drag and drop the file. Same as moving a file on your computer.

Is this addressing what you're talking about? :scratch

[devbobo]

My understanding is that the latest hard disk HD video cameras (like the Sony HDR-SR7 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000PQJGFO/ref=ord_cart_shr/105-3487761-6730061?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance)) record on their own hard disk in h.264 so when you transfer to the PC, there's no conversion necessary, you just do a file transfer in h.264 and that makes the transfer much, much faster both because you're reading off a hard disk and because there's no re-encoding needed. Then, editing programs can just deal with the h.264 file directly. At least that's the promise of the latest technology - I don't know if the promise is fully delivered yet.

John,

Any reason you are looking at the Sony HDR-SR7 over the Canon HG10 ? I'm thinking about picking something up next time I am in the US, but since they are both fairly new it's kinda hard to get my hands on one here.

Cheers,

David

[jfriend]

John,

Any reason you are looking at the Sony HDR-SR7 over the Canon HG10 ? I'm thinking about picking something up next time I am in the US, but since they are both fairly new it's kinda hard to get my hands on one here.

Cheers,

David

No good reason at all. I tend to favor Sony products and I tend to not favor Canon products. If I get serious about buying something, I will look seriously at the Canons.

[jfriend]

To load video from a tape... you have to play the tape. Real time. No other way.

To load video from a hard drive/flash drive, you drag and drop the file. Same as moving a file on your computer.

Is this addressing what you're talking about? :scratch

Yep, I just didn't know if tapes could be "read" at a speed faster than normal playback speed. It sounds like they can't.

[bigwebguy]

I'm probably a horrible test case for HD video, considering that I don't yet have a HDTV. That being said I just purchased a Canon HG10 and am thus far pleased with the results. It's Canons latest HD cam w/a 40GB Hard drive. Like Waxy said, the images are of very high quality but do need a saturation boost, especially in less than ideal lighting conditiions.

Importing into iMovie is slower than I expected. I contribute this to the decoding of the AVCHD compression into whatever it is iMovie wants to work with. Fortunately, i'm doing mostly short (< 2min clips) and ability to jump from clip to clip makes up for it. The HG10 will record in full 1080p, but I don't have a screen big enough to view that on :-) so i've been doing 720p.

One thing to keep in mind is not many programs do AVCHD yet, I'm not sure if windows movie maker does or not. You may be stuck with the Sony/Canon bundled software or have to purchase another program. On the Mac, only the most recent iMovie08 will handle AVCHD.

I'll see if I can find someplace to host the movies and show you some samples if you're interested.

[DavidTO]

BWG,

You might try VisualHub. It will output iMovie ready files, and it's really fast. It might get you around the long import times into iMovie.

[bigwebguy]

BWG,

You might try VisualHub. It will output iMovie ready files, and it's really fast. It might get you around the long import times into iMovie.You following me tonight? :D

Thanks, i'll give it a peek.

[DavidTO]

You following me tonight? :D
.


Similar interests. :D

[wxwax]

Yep, I just didn't know if tapes could be "read" at a speed faster than normal playback speed. It sounds like they can't.
Yeah, that's correct, they can't.

Makes loading video from tape a real pain in the butt, when you have a lot of it.

From a professional point of view, some of the appeals of hard drive/flash recording are:

1/ Non-linear preview/logging/editing from the get go.
2/ Ease of transfer (huge time savings, a very, very big deal.)
3/ Robustness (flash and disc, not hard drive.) The fewer moving parts the better. Tape requires a lot of moving parts.

I hope that by the time I buy my next consumer video camera (which is good enough for air, BTW) that it has flash memory.

[jfriend]

I'm probably a horrible test case for HD video, considering that I don't yet have a HDTV. That being said I just purchased a Canon HG10 and am thus far pleased with the results. It's Canons latest HD cam w/a 40GB Hard drive. Like Waxy said, the images are of very high quality but do need a saturation boost, especially in less than ideal lighting conditiions.

Importing into iMovie is slower than I expected. I contribute this to the decoding of the AVCHD compression into whatever it is iMovie wants to work with. Fortunately, i'm doing mostly short (< 2min clips) and ability to jump from clip to clip makes up for it. The HG10 will record in full 1080p, but I don't have a screen big enough to view that on :-) so i've been doing 720p.

One thing to keep in mind is not many programs do AVCHD yet, I'm not sure if windows movie maker does or not. You may be stuck with the Sony/Canon bundled software or have to purchase another program. On the Mac, only the most recent iMovie08 will handle AVCHD.

I'll see if I can find someplace to host the movies and show you some samples if you're interested.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing some movies recorded with it if you find some place to put them in their original resolution.

Thanks. The lack of editors for AVCHD encoded content was one of the reasons I put off buying something 6 months ago. I presume that problem is getting solved some point in the next year, but it's still a real problem. Windows Movie Maker for Vista doesn't support it. The version of Adobe Premiere Elements that was just released doesn't support it. Sony's Vegas software (the more advanced version) does. Pinnacle v11 does.

This wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Codec_High_Definition) was a useful read on AVCHD and who has what kind of support for it.

And this is an interesting roundup (http://manifest-tech.com/blog/2007/09/editing_avchd_video_with_today.php) of what software packages support AVCHD and how they implement the support.

[wxwax]

No good reason at all. I tend to favor Sony products and I tend to not favor Canon products. If I get serious about buying something, I will look seriously at the Canons.
Me too. My previous videocam was/is a Sony, very happy with it. Took quite a bit of thought to buy a Canon.

Superior picture quality of the HV20 won the day.

[Pupator]

Just FYI from Dealhack:


Get the Panasonic HDC-SD1 AVCHD High Definition Digital Camcorder (http://deal.dealhack.com/d.php?d1=ZGhodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJocGhvdG92aWRlby5jb20vbml0ZW0vSUM9UEFIRENTRDEmQkk9NTU2JktCSUQ9MTAxNiZrdz1QQUhEQ1NEMWhk) for $1300 - $500 instant savings = $800 at B&H Photo. The super compact SD1 features 3 CCD image capture for optimum color, Leica lens with 12x optical zoom, big 3-inch rotating LCD screen, optical image stabilization, 1920x1080 resolution recording, and Secure Digital Card slot for recording (supports both SD and SDHC Cards). It records in the AVCHD format and includes HDMI, component, and RCA/composite video outputs and a USB 2.0 port for direct data transfer from the camera. The camera ships with 4GB SDHC Card, battery & charger, USB & AV cables, IR remote control, and a B&H exclusive DVD guide for shooting better videos. The camcorder carries a full year Panasonic warranty.

[bigwebguy]

Just FYI from Dealhack:I was looking at that one too...the reviews were not that favorable wrt the Sony and Canon camcorders.

[bigwebguy]

I'd definitely be interested in seeing some movies recorded with it if you find some place to put them in their original resolution.John, I have a link for you but its on my s3 account so I don't want to post it here. Email me or turn on your PM.

[Ben]

I was looking at that one too...the reviews were not that favorable wrt the Sony and Canon camcorders.

Yeah, I researched this stuff for nearly a year in anticipation of my daughter being born. In my opinion, Sony or Canon is the way to go... nobody else has gotten close enough to really warrant serious consideration.

What I really wanted was a hard drive based Canon HV20, as most credible review sites seemed to indicate that was the gold standard in quality, but I absolutely refused to deal with tape.

I ended up buying the HG10 like Lee did. It has a few drawbacks over the HV20, most of which I don't care that much about (apparently 24p mode doesn't work particularly well on the HG10 for instance).

The Sony gets very highly reviewed as well, and has several hard drive based models. The high end one uses a dock to connect to your computer, which I wasn't excited about carrying around with me everywhere. In addition, the Canon consistently got significantly higher marks with their image stabilization. I am not a steady shot anyways, and that is compounded further when I am chasing kids around trying to keep them in frame. :rofl

As for editing, iMovie08 is brain-dead simple... which is great for pretty much everything I am doing. It even has some controls to mess with saturation I believe, which I haven't messed with yet... but I am interested in toying with to see if I can improve the quality of the colors.

I have been archiving original footage straight to s3, then doing my editing and plan to delete the scratch files from my disk. iMovie converts the AVCHD files into something like 10x their filesize to actually work with them. So it is a non-ideal way to actually archive the footage. What I do is create an archive of the exact hard drive filestructure when I offload the camera, and then I can just create a dmg of that and re-mount that as a fake camera and import from that easily enough. That way I can pull any archive off of s3, remount it and work with the files again.

I think I am going to end up buying a good microphone for my camera for situations where sound is important. None of these handheld cameras are particulary good with sound for obvious reasons. If you are shooting in a place with any sort of ambient noise, you are going to have troubles making out the conversation you are filming. I will post an update once I buy a microphone and test it out. :)

[bigwebguy]

In addition, the Canon consistently got significantly higher marks with their image stabilization. I am not a steady shot anyways, and that is compounded further when I am chasing kids around trying to keep them in frame. :nod The IS on the HG10 is great and the autofocus is super-super-fast

[jfriend]

John, I have a link for you but its on my s3 account so I don't want to post it here. Email me or turn on your PM.

You have email disabled, I had PMs disabled (but email enabled). I have temporarily enabled PMs so you can PM me.

[bigwebguy]

You have email disabled, I had PMs disabled (but email enabled). I have temporarily enabled PMs so you can PM me.:doh sorry about that.

PM to you.

[wxwax]

I think I am going to end up buying a good microphone for my camera for situations where sound is important. None of these handheld cameras are particulary good with sound for obvious reasons. If you are shooting in a place with any sort of ambient noise, you are going to have troubles making out the conversation you are filming. I will post an update once I buy a microphone and test it out. :)

The sad truth is that any camera-mounted mic is going to have that problem.

I'm sure whatever you get will be an improvement over a built-in mic that's pointing at the ceiling and which picks-up mechanical noise from the camera itself.

But the new mic will still collect lots of ambient noise. To get truly clean audio of people speaking, you'll need (a) a boom mic with an audio operator or (b) a Lavaliere mic clipped onto the speaker or (c) a handheld stick mic held close to their faces.

Obviously none of the above are practical for home use. Which means settling for a certain amount of ambient noise.

[DavidTO]

Soundtrack Pro, bundled with FCP, or SoundSoap, an inexpensive stand alone app, both offer noise reduction. They can sample the background noise and remove it. It's not perfect, but it can help quite a bit.

[cabbey]

However, I hate tape... It's just so slow to access and such a pain when there's a time code glitch. I'm determined to go hard disk.


I'm all with you on the pain and speed of the tape access... huge drawback in my mind. But if I were to buy a cam today, it would be an HDV based tape cam. (I've pretty much given up hope of an HDV format on flash memory media based cam.)

If the content of the tape is a digital stream, then I don't see any help with time code glitches that hard drives (or flash memory) can provide over tape. A glitch in the matrix is a glitch in the matrix... what media the stream is coming from really shouldn't matter.

Also, I love the idea of h.264. The potential of it boggles for viewing online and on small devices. I'm really interested in this camera or at least its potential.

When I did my research on HD cameras this past spring, I came to this conclusion: h.264 : jpeg :: HDV : raw

I'd happily convert something I shot in HDV to h.264/AVC for web distribution, but I'd never contemplate going the opposite direction.

[DavidTO]

Slightly off-topic, but related:

Final Cut Express 4 (http://www.apple.com/finalcutexpress/). Lots of new features, price drop to $199 from $299!

[DavidTO]

Slightly off-topic, but related:

Final Cut Express 4 (http://www.apple.com/finalcutexpress/). Lots of new features, price drop to $199 from $299!

[StevenV]

was there a price limit? http://tinyurl.com/2js4fl :wink

[ziggy53]

I'm all with you on the pain and speed of the tape access... huge drawback in my mind. But if I were to buy a cam today, it would be an HDV based tape cam. (I've pretty much given up hope of an HDV format on flash memory media based cam.)

If the content of the tape is a digital stream, then I don't see any help with time code glitches that hard drives (or flash memory) can provide over tape. A glitch in the matrix is a glitch in the matrix... what media the stream is coming from really shouldn't matter.



When I did my research on HD cameras this past spring, I came to this conclusion: h.264 : jpeg :: HDV : raw

I'd happily convert something I shot in HDV to h.264/AVC for web distribution, but I'd never contemplate going the opposite direction.

:agree

The hard drive based machines which use a fixed HD are also fixed in record time, where a tape based camcorder can be extended with additional tapes.

My greater concern is image quality through the editing process. AVCHD uses an MPEG4 compression which requires long GOP sequences rather than the discrete frames of DV/HDV. This means that in order to edit frame accurately in AVCHD you need to first transform the GOP sequence into discrete frames and then transcode back when done. This can be a tremendous detriment to image quality, especially in complicated editing and overlays.

I suspect that action sequences and other video which has either a lot of detail or a lot of noise are going to be particularly problematic.

[Ben]

I was debating between the Rode Videomic (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/363083-REG/Rode_VIDEOMIC_VideoMic_Camera_Mounted.html) and the Rode SVM (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/450170-REG/Rode_STEREO_VIDEO_MIC_Stereo_VideoMic_Camera.html). Its a tough call, because they are obviously ideal for different situations. The Videomic will do much better one on one directional. The SVM will handle situations with multiple people much better, but pick up more surrounding ambient noise. :scratch

Anyways, I have the SVM in my hands and am running some quick tests. When it gets light tomorrow I will run some more outdoor tests, but I recorded a quick test with the SVM vs. the on-board in the same situation. This is a big empty room that is essentially an echo chamber. It has a lot of ambient machine noise from our machine room. It is basically the worst room to film in at our office. :wink

The test is here:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3836059/

For those concerned with their macho image while filming, the mic only looks mostly silly. :rofl

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/221868550-L.jpg

[Ben]

Another quick and dirty test with the SVM if anyone is interested:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3836059#222063808

This is in the parking lot at the office, right next to the freeway. Lots of ambient traffic noise, but no wind.

The voice levels of both me (behind the camera) and Mark (in front of the camera) are roughly identical. The big difference in volume is all due to the microphones.

[cabbey]

For those concerned with their macho image while filming, the mic only looks mostly silly. :rofl

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/221868550-S.jpg

Oi. That mic is bigger than your *cam*. There's something just soo wrong and yet uber cool about that.....

[z_28]

HD camera may be a nice Christmas gadget yet,
but for more serious video tasks may I recommend
Panasonic AG-DVX100B ?
:thumb

[docwalker]

The support desk Heros have been asked several times what the best video camera is, what we prefer, or what we use.... I thought it might be better to get a larger sample of what people are using.
So my questions to you video dgrinners....

What video camera are you using?
What editing software?
Any good or bad points, or recommendations?

Feel free to include any sample video links to show what you are getting.

To start it off, I am using:

Canon XH-A1 w/Firestore FS-4 DTE drive for storage (no tapes for me)
Final Cut Pro
and Compressor to convert to h.264 before upload

I love the camera, video quality it great. Sound is very good from the stock mic. I have also have a Sennheiser wireless mic set up as well.

Here is a silly video that I did to capture my babies eating:

http://docwalker.smugmug.com/gallery/3849097#222717166-A-LB (http://docwalker.smugmug.com/gallery/3849097#222717166-L-LB)

--Doc

[ian408]

Well, I guess I'll ask the total n00b question to start things off. I'm interested
in getting a video camera.

I've looked at the Canon line. The smaller HV cameras are attractive because
of their size. Yet their more prosumer versions are attractive for the feature
set they offer.

Sony, Panasonic and JVC all have respectable models in each of the price
ranges.

Where does one start?

[cabbey]

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=74766

Perhaps a DoctorIT should pull that thread in from the wide angle now that we have a good home for it.

[DavidTO]

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=74766

Perhaps a DoctorIT should pull that thread in from the wide angle now that we have a good home for it.


Done.

[jasonstone]

Well, I guess I'll ask the total n00b question to start things off. I'm interested
in getting a video camera.

I've looked at the Canon line. The smaller HV cameras are attractive because
of their size. Yet their more prosumer versions are attractive for the feature
set they offer.

Sony, Panasonic and JVC all have respectable models in each of the price
ranges.

Where does one start?

www.camcorderinfo.com (http://www.camcorderinfo.com) appears to have some decent info - just ignore the ads :rolleyes

Here is their page on why miniDV is still the choice of format:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/d/Reviews&level_b=Camcorder&level_c=MiniDV.htm

Compression is less with miniDV than with mpeg2 used in HDD recorders etc.

I bought Sony as the low-light performance is meant to be better - although I bought 4 years ago now - I'm very happy with the results.

I don't have HD, or a HD TV (actually I don't have ANY TV :wink at all - just a projector and a mac powerbook)

One thing which may sound obvious but which made a WORLD of difference for me is to ensure that it's not one of those tall format ones - i.e. that you hold vertical in your hand as:
1. they're kind of awkward to use all the buttons without shaking
2. the microphone is often (well it was when i was looking) on the top - which means crap sound recording of your targe twhich is in _front_ of the camera

Another thing - a longer optical zoom is important - i don't bother using digital zoom as the quality is crap and camera shake is unavoidable even with steadycam option turned on

Keep in mind that experience with choosign the camcorder was 4yrs ago and I gues sthings have changed and that HD etc. is coming down in price now

Good luck :)

[ChrisJ]

I also bought my cam 3-4 years ago and I ended up purchasing a Panasonic (MiniDV) for a couple reasons: 3-CCD color and focusing speed. The Sony had better low light performance and steady-shot. Otherwise, features important to me were about the same.

I wish they'd come out with a camera that uses a hard disk, but still records uncompressed video. Maybe they have? I haven't been in the market for a while. With small hard disks getting bigger, it can't be too far away. My next cam will probably be Hi-Def., so I'm interested to hear about others' opinions there.

[darkdragon]

I wish they'd come out with a camera that uses a hard disk, but still records uncompressed video. Maybe they have? I haven't been in the market for a while. With small hard disks getting bigger, it can't be too far away. My next cam will probably be Hi-Def., so I'm interested to hear about others' opinions there.


They have, it is called the RED One - and only $17,500 for the body only. :wink

In reality though, you can add HDD recording to any camera with a Firewire port by adding on a Focus Enhancements FireStore. They range in price from $500-$2000 or so, but a lot of videgraphers swear by them. Most can be used in tandem with tape too - giving you an instant onsite backup of your video.

[ziggy53]

... you can add HDD recording to any camera with a Firewire port by adding on a Focus Enhancements FireStore. ... Most can be used in tandem with tape too - giving you an instant onsite backup of your video.

Pretty neat stuff. Thanks for the tip! :thumb

[ChrisJ]

They have, it is called the RED One - and only $17,500 for the body only. :wink

In reality though, you can add HDD recording to any camera with a Firewire port by adding on a Focus Enhancements FireStore. They range in price from $500-$2000 or so, but a lot of videgraphers swear by them. Most can be used in tandem with tape too - giving you an instant onsite backup of your video.
Yeah, I think I saw an article about the RED One... too rich for my blood! I mostly take home/vacation movies.

The FireStore is interesting.... but really shouldn't be necessary. My raw AVI dumps for a 60min MiniDV tape are only about 13 Gig. So give me a 160 Gig laptop disk on a camera and I'm good to go. Or make it a Flash disk at 40 Gig and I'd be even happier.

[docwalker]

The FireStore is interesting.... but really shouldn't be necessary.

It may not be necessary but it is a huge timesaver. I shot an event Monday and Tuesday night that was about 2 hours long each night and easily could have run over. There was no time for tape changes things were very fast paced. The Firestore FS-4 had 399 minutes of storage when I started. No tape that I can get for my camera could handle that.

When I got home, I hooked the FS-4 up to the MacPro and transfered it to my storage array directly. It did not have to be converted. When I get ready to edit this weekend, I simply import it into the project. That is a HUGE timesaver in my opinion. Is it for everyone? No. But it is a tool that I am very glad to have at my disposal. 2 hours of HD video would take a very long time to convert... time I do not have.

[ChrisJ]

I wasn't questioning it's usefulness... just that technology has advanced to the point where it could be built into the camera itself. 160 Gig H.D. at 13 Gig/Hr is about 12 hours of video. Make that a removable eSATA disk and you make the FS-4 obsolete.

Given that such a beast does not exist, the FS-4 looks awesome... But I couldn't really justify it with the limited amount of video I do.

[docwalker]

Chris, I understand :thumb. I was just trying to give an example of how it could be useful. I did not want someone to see "shouldn't be necessary" and pass it over. If you shoot short videos or infrequently, I agree. It is not for you. Unless you need the speed of transfer without conversion. But, for someone who shoots alot, either the FS-4 or one of the other DTE systems should be given a hard look. There are pro's and con's that must be considered.

--Doc

[darkdragon]

Chris, I understand :thumb. I was just trying to give an example of how it could be useful. I did not want someone to see "shouldn't be necessary" and pass it over. If you shoot short videos or infrequently, I agree. It is not for you. Unless you need the speed of transfer without conversion. But, for someone who shoots alot, either the FS-4 or one of the other DTE systems should be given a hard look. There are pro's and con's that must be considered.

--Doc


It's actually cheaper (but not as convenient) to record direct to a laptop/external drive. Of course then you need more power and to keep the laptop safe and clean.

On-location reporters/film-makers (that i've talked to) with Canon XL2 or Panasonic DVX cameras love the usuablity of the FS-4 and others like it. In the field doing reporting or Doc work the less expensive laptop version wouldn't work, also tapes are a pain to use in the field because they fill up so fast and changing them can cause dust to enter the camera - etc.

[Jamoke]

Sometimes I hate the amount of information that is available for a product. I come here frequently in regards to almost anything Photogrpahy, but I had some money laying around, and thought I would spend it on some consumer grade Cinemetography stuff. So I purchased a Sony SR10. I did a ton of research, and would like to provide assistance in answering any questions people have in regards to this unit. I have one, and can tell you anything technically you would like to know.

(while my video is processed by Smugmug.... I thought I would post. I knew it would take a while longer compared to Pictures.... but I guess I didn't realize exactly how long it would take to compress it to L, M, S, etc. Definately quicker than if I did it myself though! )

[DavidTO]

So I purchased a Sony SR10. I did a ton of research, and would like to provide assistance in answering any questions people have in regards to this unit. I have one, and can tell you anything technically you would like to know.
\


:clap

[jfriend]

Sometimes I hate the amount of information that is available for a product. I come here frequently in regards to almost anything Photogrpahy, but I had some money laying around, and thought I would spend it on some consumer grade Cinemetography stuff. So I purchased a Sony SR10. I did a ton of research, and would like to provide assistance in answering any questions people have in regards to this unit. I have one, and can tell you anything technically you would like to know.

Cool! I have a few questions about it. I need to buy something before this summer and the sooner I decide the sooner I can start using it.

What led you to pick the SR10 instead of the SR11 or SR12? Which other cameras did you seriously consider?

Compared to the SR10, the SR11 and SR12 have: larger sensors (1/3" instead of 1/5"), better low light performance (5 Lux instead of 8 Lux), more storage (60GB and 120GB instead of 40GB) a little less zoom (12x instead of 15x - probably because of the larger sensor) and they cost more ($1399 and $1199 vs. $999).

Do it capture video in AVCHD? What are you using to edit the video you capture? How long does it take to transfer an hour of video from the camera's hard drive to your PC over USB2?

When you show the video on a large HD TV screen, does it look high quality? Do you see any compression artifacts?

How's the sound quality? I'm always amazed at cameras that have the microphone on the top of the camera.

Can you point us to any videos you've uploaded on Smugmug?

[Jamoke]

What led you to pick the SR10 instead of the SR11 or SR12?
Which other cameras did you seriously consider?
Do it capture video in AVCHD?
Does it look high quality?
How's the sound quality?
Can you point us to any videos you've uploaded on Smugmug?

Holy Cow.

A Few Samples (http://www.stickspics.com/gallery/4514233_ppSdW)
(Smugmug Downsizes from 1440x1080. I'll have to check if it downsizes 1900x1080...)
(Smugmug also converts them as well - not sure what process they use)

I was debating between Sony, Canon, and Panasonic. Panasonic's had respectable features, but the sensor killed me. Canon has the best Sensor at the 1000 Price range, but it wasn't avialable until April, and it has a SSD drive instead of a HDD (Which is actually great!) So Canon would have been the only reason I would have waited, but the compromise for Sony was relavant because of the 'steady shot' features. Once I saw an IS lens, I could never shoot anything but IS....

Workflow consists of iMovie --> Quicktime --> Upload. iMovie inflates the files from their 5-17 Mbps form to about 50-170 Mbps using an awkward Apple Interlaced Codec. The AVCHD raw file is in an MT2S file format which I am unfamiliar with. It is an underlying H.264 codec, but Apple doesn't recognize the files. Once imported to iMovie they inflate 100 MB to 900 MB, and then I promptly recompress them to MP4 H.264 codec which puts them back down to 100 MB. I'm sure there's a better workflow, but I haven't found it yet.

Mbps / 8 = MBps

(Record Rate/8 * Length = File Size :: [17 Mbps / 8] * 60 Seconds = 128 MB per Minute)

iMovie only can export a 'project' to a format less than 1080 (can't remember what, because once I saw it was less, I was convinced not to use it.) So Quicktime has been my editor of choice until I can get the workflow for Final Cut worked out.

The sound quality is impressive. Microphone on the top but it is a 5.1 ch microphone. Sound editing could be really fun, because you have an audio source location aware file. The Rear Microphone pics up the Cinemetographer, and thus in my theory would allow you to isolate those sounds and limit their decible volume. The other channels would pick it up as well, but I think the 5.1 was a great feature over Canon's 2ch sound capabilities.

It is HiDef - but the inhibiting factor is that it records interpolated (View Gallery and find examples...) 60i is the frame rate. So it records 540 scan lines every 1/60th of a second. Put them together and you get 30p, but it's a little bit different because the two frames are 1/60th apart, so you can get some funky aberations due to the 1/60th of a second jump.

Overall I'm impressed, and the driving factor for the SOny decision was the Steady Shot feature. Larger Senser is great but I would kill for something to take the shake out of my footage. Gimmicky features like Night Shot, Black and White, Sepia, etc. etc. are nice, but I looked long and hard at the Optical Zoom capabilities, Frame Rates, Lens Specifications, Stabilization Mechanisms, and Storage Format. All of the camera's within a price range offer 5-17 Mbps recording, and as such I think the caliber of video file that comes out is then determined by the attached hardware.

[TylerW]

The FireStore is interesting.... but really shouldn't be necessary. My raw AVI dumps for a 60min MiniDV tape are only about 13 Gig. So give me a 160 Gig laptop disk on a camera and I'm good to go. Or make it a Flash disk at 40 Gig and I'd be even happier.

For what its worth, MiniDV video is compressed - and pretty significantly.

If you;re talking uncompressed, lets do some maths here.

one uncompressed SD frame is 720x480 pixels in NTSC. Roughly 345kb per frame.

30 fps x 60 seconds per minute = 622 megs per minute. Still doable if you had a 160 gb laptop drive. provided you never considered HD. There youd need an assistant pushing a RAID to all of your shoots. :rofl

there's good compression and bad compression - and the good stuff is really great.

[ziggy53]

For what its worth, MiniDV video is compressed - and pretty significantly.

If you;re talking uncompressed, lets do some maths here.

one uncompressed SD frame is 720x480 pixels in NTSC. Roughly 345kb per frame.

30 fps x 60 seconds per minute = 622 megs per minute. Still doable if you had a 160 gb laptop drive. provided you never considered HD. There youd need an assistant pushing a RAID to all of your shoots. :rofl

there's good compression and bad compression - and the good stuff is really great.

HuffYUV?

[jfriend]

Holy Cow.

A Few Samples (http://www.stickspics.com/gallery/4514233_ppSdW)
(Smugmug Downsizes from 1440x1080. I'll have to check if it downsizes 1900x1080...)
(Smugmug also converts them as well - not sure what process they use)

I was debating between Sony, Canon, and Panasonic. Panasonic's had respectable features, but the sensor killed me. Canon has the best Sensor at the 1000 Price range, but it wasn't avialable until April, and it has a SSD drive instead of a HDD (Which is actually great!) So Canon would have been the only reason I would have waited, but the compromise for Sony was relavant because of the 'steady shot' features. Once I saw an IS lens, I could never shoot anything but IS....

Workflow consists of iMovie --> Quicktime --> Upload. iMovie inflates the files from their 5-17 Mbps form to about 50-170 Mbps using an awkward Apple Interlaced Codec. The AVCHD raw file is in an MT2S file format which I am unfamiliar with. It is an underlying H.264 codec, but Apple doesn't recognize the files. Once imported to iMovie they inflate 100 MB to 900 MB, and then I promptly recompress them to MP4 H.264 codec which puts them back down to 100 MB. I'm sure there's a better workflow, but I haven't found it yet.

Mbps / 8 = MBps

(Record Rate/8 * Length = File Size :: [17 Mbps / 8] * 60 Seconds = 128 MB per Minute)

iMovie only can export a 'project' to a format less than 1080 (can't remember what, because once I saw it was less, I was convinced not to use it.) So Quicktime has been my editor of choice until I can get the workflow for Final Cut worked out.

The sound quality is impressive. Microphone on the top but it is a 5.1 ch microphone. Sound editing could be really fun, because you have an audio source location aware file. The Rear Microphone pics up the Cinemetographer, and thus in my theory would allow you to isolate those sounds and limit their decible volume. The other channels would pick it up as well, but I think the 5.1 was a great feature over Canon's 2ch sound capabilities.

It is HiDef - but the inhibiting factor is that it records interpolated (View Gallery and find examples...) 60i is the frame rate. So it records 540 scan lines every 1/60th of a second. Put them together and you get 30p, but it's a little bit different because the two frames are 1/60th apart, so you can get some funky aberations due to the 1/60th of a second jump.

Overall I'm impressed, and the driving factor for the SOny decision was the Steady Shot feature. Larger Senser is great but I would kill for something to take the shake out of my footage. Gimmicky features like Night Shot, Black and White, Sepia, etc. etc. are nice, but I looked long and hard at the Optical Zoom capabilities, Frame Rates, Lens Specifications, Stabilization Mechanisms, and Storage Format. All of the camera's within a price range offer 5-17 Mbps recording, and as such I think the caliber of video file that comes out is then determined by the attached hardware.

Thanks for the info.

[cabbey]

Workflow consists of iMovie --> Quicktime --> Upload. iMovie inflates the files from their 5-17 Mbps form to about 50-170 Mbps using an awkward Apple Interlaced Codec. The AVCHD raw file is in an MT2S file format which I am unfamiliar with. It is an underlying H.264 codec, but Apple doesn't recognize the files. Once imported to iMovie they inflate 100 MB to 900 MB, and then I promptly recompress them to MP4 H.264 codec which puts them back down to 100 MB. I'm sure there's a better workflow, but I haven't found it yet.

That should be "apple intermediary codec" which is a huge chunky beast. But it's also designed solely for editing. Every frame has all the information for it right there. Think of it as camera raw in the still photo world. Would you spend hours tweaking a heavily compressed jpeg export in photoshop if you had the original raw available? Same deal here. Use AIC for editing and only export to H.264 when you're done.

[jbswear]

I know it's not still photography, but I'm searching for advice in buying my first digital video camera.

Last time I used a camera, 8mm film was the medium. That was YEARS ago.

I have no clue about what to look for in a camera--recording medium, sensor type, whatever.

I'm looking for something under $500, with the main job of the camera to be recording the progress of my motorcycle rebuilds, especially when I get them to start up again. It may find use after that, as I learn to use and enjoy it more.

Can you guys show me some review sites (kind of like www.dpreview.com for still cameras) or anecdotal advice?

Thanks!

[ziggy53]

I like this site for basic reviews and information:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/

You can get breakdowns by manufacturer and by format.

Another source for good reviews:

http://www.videomaker.com/learn/product-reviews/digital-camcorder-reviews/

[joshhuntnm]

I have an old Canon GL1 that is on the fritz. This is a 10 year old 3 chip camera that cost about $2000. it is not too different than the current offering, the GL2 I have it in for repair, but wonder about sinking money into a 10 year old camera. I was very pleased with the quality of the video.

i am thinking of something like the new Canon Vixia hf 100 or hf10. This is a cheaper (about 1000) one chip, (but much bigger chip) high def camera.

would anyone venture a guess as to how the video quality might compare?

Anyone have any other suggestions?

[darkdragon]

I can't comment on the cameras you listed, but I can say that I had 3 GL1s and have since replaced 2 of them with the Panasonic DVX100B. You can find used DVX around $2000 right now. I love the DVX(s) and will probably end up replacing my last GL1 with an HVX at some point (that is the HD version of a DVX).

Of course, just like with still cameras it all depends on how much you want to spend and what features you need.

If it were me, I would not pay anything to have the GL1 fixed as the repair will cost you more than the worth of the camera. Better to upgrade to a new cam be it 3-chip SD or 1-chip HD. Dunno if this helps, but I hope it does.

[vaio2006]

Personally, I hate built-in HD cameras. Where the heck are you going to archive them? Burn them to DVD? Dump them back to miniDV or DVCAM?

I am in love with the SONY's XDCAM line up

[ziggy53]

Personally, I hate built-in HD cameras. Where the heck are you going to archive them? Burn them to DVD? Dump them back to miniDV or DVCAM?

I am in love with the SONY's XDCAM line up

The Sony PDW-530 XDCAM is just amazing.

[heynow]

They both have hard drive as well as smart stick to capture your vids. A stupid question....Obviously one can play back the footage and watch what you've captured on your camcorder right? I just don't have HD TV yet. I just want to purchase a good HD hard drive and flash memory card camcorder now before my vacation. Or if you don't have any intensions of down loading it to your computer, just plug in your camcorder to your HD TV and watch it, right? I'm so new to this. My current camcorder is sony 950 3 chipper. thanx heythere

[bptheo]

They both have hard drive as well as smart stick to capture your vids. A stupid question....Obviously one can play back the footage and watch what you've captured on your camcorder right? I just don't have HD TV yet. I just want to purchase a good HD hard drive and flash memory card camcorder now before my vacation. Or if you don't have any intensions of down loading it to your computer, just plug in your camcorder to your HD TV and watch it, right? I'm so new to this. My current camcorder is sony 950 3 chipper. thanx heythere
I was in the same boat and just bought the HDR-SR11. Great camcorder, and you can plug it into any SD or HD TV. If your TV is 4:3, it does a great job at letterboxing for you to view, so no worries.

The biggest word of caution is extreme lack of good video editing tools for the new AVCHD codec, especially if on Windows. I played around for several days to find a decent tool to convert my HD video into DVD-size to upload to SmugMug, and still it looks kind of poor compared to how the original look (take a look here (http://bptheo.smugmug.com/gallery/4894457_2zZWQ#292430158_C6qW7-A-LB)). I ended up going with Sony Vegas 8 for video editing until I bother to by a MacBook Pro - and still I had to play around with many of the encoding advanced options to get the video to look as good as it does in the above link.

Also note that some video editing tools require the original file/directory structure from the camcorder when importing, so if backing up to a home harddrive, you may want to just copy the entire directory structure from the camcorder for archiving, rather than the standalone video files.

Best of luck!

-Brian

[joshhuntnm]

Just a little update. I just got Canon HG10. It is aobut $700 at Amazon and BH. HD, Hard Drive based. It is great. Well saturated, clear. Manual white balance works like a charm. I ordered a second one last night to do weddings.

[ziggy53]

Just a little update. I just got Canon HG10. It is aobut $700 at Amazon and BH. HD, Hard Drive based. It is great. Well saturated, clear. Manual white balance works like a charm. I ordered a second one last night to do weddings.

Sounds cool.

How is the low-light performance?

What video editing software works with the files?

[joshhuntnm]

Sounds cool.

How is the low-light performance?

What video editing software works with the files?

Low light performance; that is always the test, isn't it? Have not tested that yet. I will repost when I get moe experience.

I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum (the "Elements" of Vegas) it works great. I have used the non-patinum (does not do HD) version for years. I like it because it is fast. you are not having to constantly wait on it to render. i feared, an assumed that with HD it would be slow. I am runing it on a middle of the line (but new) laptop--2 gig of ram with Vista. I was amazed how snappy it is editing HD.

[jfriend]

I'm thinking pretty seriously about getting the Sony HDR-SR12. It's full HD (1920 x 1080 at 15Mbps bit rate and 60i fps). According to the detailed review I read here (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-HDR-SR12-Camcorder-Review-34809.htm), It sounds like Sony made a really good step forward in low light performance with a new sensor design and noise reduction system and also really improved the performance and artifacting of the AVCHD storage format which is what has been holding me back from buying an HDD video camera so far. I really want a non-tape (HDD or Flash) machine so that I can more easily transfer the data to a computer, but they have all been AVCHD and the first revisions really weren't up to the quality of the tape recorders. This review makes it sound like Sony really improved the AVCHD recording in this new model and it's now neck and neck with tape, but with the convenience of easier data transfer.

The SR12 has 120GB of hard drive storage which gives you 8 hours of full HD recording. You will need multiple batteries to use all that storage without a charge.

The weaknesses cited are that there's still some ghosting on fast moving objects and you need more computer horsepower and 2008 versions of video software to do editing on the AVCHD format.

Sound and video quality are supposed to be real good for this size video camera. B&H has it in stock for $1299. I'll probably pull the trigger and order one later this week if my research doesn't find something better by then.

[heynow]

[quote=bptheo]I was in the same boat and just bought the HDR-SR11. Great camcorder, and you can plug it into any SD or HD TV. If your TV is 4:3, it does a great job at letterboxing for you to view, so no worries.

Hey there Braian and everyone. So I got a sony sr-11 and love it to the max. A dumb queston: There are 4 speed in which to record in HD and SD. The slower speed in HD SP on a 8 gig smart stick takes around 3 hours of footage I believe. As with the SD mode there are 3 speeds in which to record-tape! There's a SD-SP speed which takes around 3 hours of footage at 5 bit rate or something. Is it always better to tape in HD mode regardless of speed right? I mean it defeats the purpose of getting this HD cam. Why do they even have a SD mode? Wide angle lenz? I have a wide angle lens from TRV 950 3 chip and to my surprise it fits perfectly on this sr-11. Except for the fact that it blocks the sensor of the FLASH so I can't use it for photo-stills pics. I've seen sony selling a HD wide angle for this cam for $200 bucks. My question is I can continue to use the one I have right? "if if fits, you must USE." Thank you heynow

[TexPhotog]

Personally, I hate built-in HD cameras. Where the heck are you going to archive them? Burn them to DVD? Dump them back to miniDV or DVCAM?

I am in love with the SONY's XDCAM line up

I want me one of them... or two... but I can't afford them :cry

So I still shoot with my trusty Sony DSR-PD170 on DVCam tapes instead of MiniDV... :clap

Just my two cents...

[jfriend]

Personally, I hate built-in HD cameras. Where the heck are you going to archive them? Burn them to DVD? Dump them back to miniDV or DVCAM?

I am in love with the SONY's XDCAM line up

You can archive to hard disk, to DVD or to Blu-Ray disks. It's now possible to put HD video on regular DVDs that you can then play in a blu-ray player (it just has less capacity because it's a normal DVD).

I absolutely love that I can transfer 30 minutes of video to my PC in a few minutes and don't have to wait the length of the video (my big issue with tape). I love that my video is already broken up into scenes and separate files for me by the camera. I love that I can easily play back any scene on the camera (for viewing on the camera LCD or on an attached TV) without any rewinding - it's all random access. The camera gives me a thumbnail for each scene right on the camera and I just tap on the one I want to play.

[joshhuntnm]

I absolutely love that I can transfer 30 minutes of video to my PC in a few minutes and don't have to wait the length of the video (my big issue with tape).

i totally agree. If you do much editing, this is huge. Not only does capturing from tape take a long time, it is prone to error--droped frames. To be safe, you can not use your computer while it is capturing and pray that your antivirus does not decide this would be a good time to do a scan

I recently bought a 500 gig external hd from $100. That will hold more HD video that I will shoot in a few years. Long live hard drive cameras.

[peestandingup]

My personal opinion is, I'm not buying into AVCHD until:

A. Most software can edit the raw files without transcoding. Yes, folks. The transferred video you get from your AVCHD camera (which is compressed already) is compressed again when it comes off the camera into your computer, unlike tape. To me, this is double lossy & defeats the purpose of the format's ease of use factor. The reason it does this is because AVCHD files take a lot of processing power to edit in their native state. No thanks.

B. High capacity SD cards get cheap enough to be treated like DV tape. Meaning you use a card only once then keep it as an archive instead of having to make your own backups. Trust me, if you do a lot of shooting with AVCHD & you plan to back those native files up to a hard drive, the space fills up QUICK, especially with family stuff. You can now get 2GB cards cheap as hell (like $8), so I imagine this wont take long to catchup & become a reality.

C. The quality matches HDV, which will probably happen when we see reason "A". Ask anyone who knows, its not as good...yet. But its closing fast.

Until then, its tape for me. I don't wanna shoot now & edit later. I'll shoot now & edit now, without the shortcomings.

[jfriend]

My personal opinion is, I'm not buying into AVCHD until:

A. Most software can edit the raw files without transcoding. Yes, folks. The transferred video you get from your AVCHD camera (which is compressed already) is compressed again when it comes off the camera into your computer, unlike tape. To me, this is double lossy & defeats the purpose of the format's ease of use factor. The reason it does this is because AVCHD files take a lot of processing power to edit in their native state. No thanks.

B. High capacity SD cards get cheap enough to be treated like DV tape. Meaning you use a card only once then keep it as an archive instead of having to make your own backups. Trust me, if you do a lot of shooting with AVCHD & you plan to back those native files up to a hard drive, the space fills up QUICK, especially with family stuff. You can now get 2GB cards cheap as hell (like $8), so I imagine this wont take long to catchup & become a reality.

C. The quality matches HDV, which will probably happen when we see reason "A". Ask anyone who knows, its not as good...yet. But its closing fast.

Until then, its tape for me. I don't wanna shoot now & edit later. I'll shoot now & edit now, without the shortcomings.

I bought an AVCHD camera recently for several reasons:

1) The reviews said that Sony had finally improved the AVCHD IQ significantly and it was now pretty close to tape.

2) There are several video editing programs that can handle AVCHD now without any transcoding step. Obviously, you have to decide if your preferred video editing program can handle the flavor from your camera, but there are now several to choose from. This was not true last year when these cameras first came out, but the situation has already improved.

3) It takes me minutes to transfer an hour of video from my camera to my PC's hard disk for editing. It would take an hour to transfer an hour of video from a tape to my PC.

4) The ability to see all the scenes I shot in a menu on the camera and playback any single scene or all of the scenes is really handy. The ability to delete any individual scene in camera is also useful. All of this happens instantly too with no time waiting for the tape to seek to the right spot. Hard drives are random access, tape drives are sequential access.

5) I bought a 160GB hard drive model HD video camera which gives me over 14 hours of video storage.

6) Hard drives for storing your video (even some external USB drives) are down to about 25¢ per GB and dropping continually. Your example above has flash cards at $4 per GB (16x more expensive). While flash cards are more durable, they aren't likely to pass hard drives in price any time soon.

[peestandingup]

6) Hard drives for storing your video (even some external USB drives) are down to about 25¢ per GB and dropping continually. Your example above has flash cards at $4 per GB (16x more expensive). While flash cards are more durable, they aren't likely to pass hard drives in price any time soon.
Ahh, but thats the kicker. Spinnig hard drives fail all the time, unlike solid state SD cards. So, that means anyone who doesn't wanna possibly lose all their archived AVCHD files in a blink of an eye will want to make a "backup of your backup", which is hard to do considering the sizes these files are. So, its a big commitment & more upfront costs when going AVCHD right now for most people.

I do admit its less of a hassle than tape, but there's no way I would trust all my original footage to a single spinning hard drive.

[docwalker]

Not trying to stir the pot... but I have had more SD card problems than HD problems :-) I have a friend right now that is bringing over a card that corrupted on a trip. Hopefully the card recovery software will work or the photos are gone.

My FS-4 records in 9 minute chunks. So depending on how the drive corrupts, it is possible that part of the video will be salvageable. You must weigh the risk/benefits on everything you do or use with technology. For me the benefits of the HD storage are the priority.

[jfriend]

Ahh, but thats the kicker. Spinnig hard drives fail all the time, unlike solid state SD cards. So, that means anyone who doesn't wanna possibly lose all their archived AVCHD files in a blink of an eye will want to make a "backup of your backup", which is hard to do considering the sizes these files are. So, its a big commitment & more upfront costs when going AVCHD right now for most people.

I do admit its less of a hassle than tape, but there's no way I would trust all my original footage to a single spinning hard drive.

I have double hard drive backups with a fully automated system to make the backups. OK, the double hard drives makes it only 8x less expensive than flash instead of 16x.

[S-Man]

Anyone use the Canon S3 or S5 for video? That's what I'm going to be using.

[joshhuntnm]

I have double hard drive backups with a fully automated system to make the backups. OK, the double hard drives makes it only 8x less expensive than flash instead of 16x.

any media can fail--flash or hard drive. So, your original 16x savings is probably closer to right. to say nothing of the eas of oganization. Let's say you have 500 gig of video one one hard drive. How many flash cards is that to keep up with?

[peestandingup]

any media can fail--flash or hard drive. So, your original 16x savings is probably closer to right. Sure they can, nothing is failure-proof. The simple fact of the matter is, hard drives are the #1 component in computers that fail the most. When compared to solid state media, the SSD method is 3 & a half times less likely to fail than a regular HDD.

So, no. Your statement of 16x savings is nowhere close to being accurate. Because trusting years of your archived footage to a single HDD is foolish & you're just asking for a total loss.

And a corrupted SD card isnt the same as a mechanical HDD failure. The data is still quite recoverable with software on an SD. The problem usually lies in how the card was formatted in the camera or read by the computer. A corruption isn't a failure because the data is still very much there & easy to get to.

Besides, even if it weren't, what would you rather have happen. A single SD card fail & lose just an hour of footage or your entire HDD backup fail & lose everything you've ever shot??

[jerryr]

Hi !
Does anyone know of a web site that rates / compares video cameras as well as provides information on different models ?

Thanks - jerryr

[Kenny304]

Hi !
Does anyone know of a web site that rates / compares video cameras as well as provides information on different models ?


http://www.camcorderinfo.com/


http://reviews.cnet.com/camcorders/

are a couple I've used.