Camcorder....yes but which one

[Eric Moffett]

Marijn you might love this =D

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-HF100-Definition-Camcorder-Stabilized/dp/B00114162K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222630271&sr=1-3

Check it out it has a quality CMOS sensor it's High Definition and Solid State. All for only 600 USD or 410 EUR But you have to buy a Mini SD card 8GB gives you more or less 1 hour of recording the 16GB card gives you more or less 2 hours but what's great is that those cards are cheaper than getting the camera with internal memory It's about as big as a 12 oz soda can and the battery life is only about an hour.

[martijn]

The Sony "Standard Definition on hard disk" camcorders fit better in your budget. They range from €300 to €600. The Sony DCR-SR35, DCR-SR55 and DCR-SR75 use one CCD chip. The DCR-SR210 uses a CMOS sensor, but is the most expensive model in the series.

The difference between 1CCD and 3CCD/CMOS is pretty big and definitely worth the money though. You'll see in the collab video how the colors in for example Sean's clips (shot with his 3CCD camera) will look so vivid compared to some the other clips. Have a look at some examples.

I wouldn't go for tape, memory sticks or dvds for recording. That's maybe just me though.

Good luck with your choice

[Marijn]

Thanks Eric for noticing that. The fact that is it hasn't got a HDD and I'll have to buy mircoSD's makes it a bit too expensive for my taste - I'm not really that eager for HD. It looks like an awesome deal though, for someone who is willing to pay (a bit) more than me!

And thanks Martijn. I had a look at the ''Standard Definition on hard disk'' page (as you mentionted) 'cause that is what I thought would fit me best.

The 1CCD vs. 3CCD/CMOS is bugging me, I do believe the difference is significant (thanks for the example-page) but I can't really say if it's worth my money either. I'm not really aiming for professional, top-notch filming etc., but a significant quality improvement isn't something I want to ignore.

All in all I think I'll settle with a cheaper 1CCD model since nearly €600,- (DCR-SR210) is just to much for something I just want to experiment with a bit. For now the DCR-SR55E seems most reasonable.

Damn choosing sucks!

[martijn]

All in all I think I'll settle with a cheaper 1CCD model since nearly €600,- (DCR-SR210) is just to much for something I just want to experiment with a bit. For now the DCR-SR55E seems most reasonable.

Yup, sounds fair!

[Eric Moffett]

alright but a 8gb card is only about $25 or 18 Euro. So yeah but I think since it would be in NTSC opposed to PAL which I assume your country uses, and the power adapter is for America it may be more of a pain than its worth.

[Marijn]

I received the DCR-SR55e today and I think I made the right choice Thanks again!

[Sean]

Great, but I think we need a video as proof. Come on, you know you want to.

[William]

Great, but I think we need a video as proof. Come on, you know you want to.

And what about yourself?

[looby]

What do we reckon gents?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=130274401782&Category=11724&_trksid=p3907.m29&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26its%3DI%26otn%3D2

Put it this way, someones selling the same model on gumtree for £35 so either way it won't cost me more than £35.  My question is, can you find any specs on that particular model (I failed) and if so, do the newer 'cheap' video cameras (i.e £50-£60) really outdo the quality of these 4-5 year old cameras?

Answers appreciated asap since tyhe auction finishes in an hour or so

Ta

[Sean]

From what I know, I'd stay away from Hi8 if you at all can. It's and old, almost extinct, analogue, proprietary Sony format that almost always offers substantially lower quality than a digital option like miniDV. That said - that's pretty cheap for a video camera.

Some links for reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_video_format#The_future_of_the_8.C2.A0mm_video_formats

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/digital_or_analog.htm
(and keep in mind this was written back in 2001!!)

I started off editing analog video (Man's Chew days)... it really wasn't worth the hassle. You might even be better off with the video recording on many inexpensive digital cameras these days.

[The Void]

£35 of hurt, my friend. It'll only make you want better. Steer clear, save up for something miniDV.

The Void
................
Kurosawa doubt

[looby]

Good good.  I thought it was too good to be true.  Time to save some pennies in that case

[Eric Moffett]

Hey guys, there is a decent camcorder on http://www.woot.com/ right now for only $130 I just purchased it. This should be way more than enough for anyone just starting out.

It's HD recording at a maximum resolution of 1280x720 and uses SD cards its recording format is *.avi so editing won't be a pain.

Again it's not prosumer, or professional quality but it is more than what someone just starting will need.

[jamzjazz]

I got the HDC-SD9 panasonic HD camcorder i downloaded the corel videostudio 12 trail which says it supports HD but i cant find the files when i browse for them. The only way of finding and playing the files is to use the editing software that came with the camera. But it is useless so i end up converting it to MPEG-4 and editing it in another program and saving it again. After which the quality isn't great. Can anyone help?

[Paino]

i just use my phone (lg viewty) it is supriseingly good for video and dose super slow mo 120fps you dont realy need any thing better but oh well

[looby]

I've got a serious urge to start filming and with some work behind me reckon it's about time I got myself a camcorder.  That's where you lot come in.

First things first, my netbook really struggles with HD footage.  It's wee processor just can't handle it which is a shame.  I'm wondering if this completely eliminates me from buying a HD camera.  I know it sounds obvious but is there any way in which my netbook would be able to process the HD footage and output a HD video if my netbook struggles to prcoess a finished HD quality film? 

If the answer is yes, do you reccommend I still go ahead and invest in a reasonably priced HD camera or go or play it safe with a decent spec non HD camera?

I'm guessing the market is still producing good quality non HD cameras so would that be my best bet considering my netbook dilemma?

My budget would definitely be around £200-300, max of £350.  Any reccommendations appreciated, mostly non HD if poss (unless you feel the HD route would be better).

Cheers y'all

[Sean]

Well I'm out of the loop when it comes to the current offerings, but I'll add what I can:
-Yes, it's highly doubtful your netbook would be able to edit HD footage. My MacBookPro struggles to do that.
-Still, if you want to make this a more long term investment, it might be worth looking at HD options. Computing power is only going up and getting cheaper and pretty soon HD is going to be the standard. Most HD camcorders will also let you record at lower resolutions in the meantime. -
-Keep in mind that there is 720 and 1080 HD.
-If you want it primarily for making online videos then you can probably get away with almost anything.
-If you primarily are going to film stuff for online videos and you have the option, getting a progressive scan camera can make life much simpler. Not sure if that's available in many cheaper cameras yet.
-I would read some online review sites to get a feeling for the current options. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ comes to mind.
-Beyond the frame size, consider the sensor quality, lens quality, ability to take manual control (if that interests you), and the format it records in. A good optical zoom is nice too.
-Also keep in mind that the line is starting to blur between quality photo and video cameras. There are some (photo) cameras that take amazing (often progressive scan and up to HD) video now. The disadvantage with most of these is that you can't just leave them running for an hour and then edit your footage. You're going to have to take shorter clips. If you're also interested in getting into digital SLR photography, the new Nikon D5000 would be one option. Here you also get awesome shallow depth of field and the ability to use creative lenses. There are a ridiculous number of point and shoot options too. That's only if you want to kill 2 birds with one stone. If only the video side of things interests you, then you'll probably be happier with a true camcorder.

If it adds anything, here's what I've been using:
-originally, some ancient analogue thing that I painfully converted to crappy looking digital (Man's Chew days)
-for the last 3-4 years: PV-GS120 Mini-DV (which I should get around to selling some day)
-now the D90 DSLR which shoots 720 progressive scan HD

[looby]

Thanks for that Sean, lots of thinking to do.

So you do have the option to shoot in lower resolution when using a HD camcorder?  That's an ideal middle ground by the sounds of things, I can maybe invest in a semi decent HD camera now, shoot in non HD while I still have my netbook and maybe shoot in HD once I've upgraded my laptop.

Not too interested in still photography at the mo but would love to give it some time one day. 

I've also looked at the little point and shoot cameras and as convenient as the reviews make them out to be I can't help but feel they'll let me down for general use.  It seems unclear how easy it is to edit the footage and what formats these cameras save footage as.  Nev, I think you mentioned buying a point and shoot camcorder some time ago.  How have you found dumping that footage in to editing software?

If I'm being very general, I basically want something that will make a fairly nice looking diabolo video without breaking the bank and without necessarily being HD but still fairly decent at close up shots (for string tricks and whatnot).  Buying second hand is definitely an option if that helps. 

Crackers (as an example), your camera seems to produce decent quality footage and without offending the age of your camera, you seem to have had it for a couple of years now.  Would you reccommend it?  If so can I get a model number? 

[Sean]

I'm pretty sure most HD cameras will let you capture SD footage too. After all, most people want to play stuff on DVDs and for that you need SD. Tijn filmed lots in SD with his HD camera until he upgraded his computer recently (there's some more about that in the last couple pages). Here's a better answer.

I wouldn't worry too much about the editing of the point and shoots. You can run just about any format through a conversion program first if need be. (In fact the same may be needed for a camcorder depending on the camcorder and software.) The format they record to varies. The quality of the video varies quite a bit from camera to camera though. You'd definitely want to read some reviews. Some of the newer better ones are probably going to produce better looking video than lots of camcorders. The biggest difference is in the process of filming and the final output. With most still cameras you couldn't set them up and film a whole show for example. Similarly, you couldn't set one up and go and try and nail a trick for 30 minutes. Usually you are limited to shorter clips. (On my D90 I'm limited to 5 minutes to prevent the sensor from overheating and it eats up batteries fast.) If you want to make video for a DVD to play on a TV then you'd be better off with a camcorder that shoots interlaced video. And, yes, some of the still cameras will record to highly compressed video clips which will result in poorer quality video.

I'd offer mine, but 1) it shoots NTSC and you'd probably want PAL, 2) you can probably find something more local, and 3) it hurts to think of how much it's devalued over the years.

[martijn]

For what it's worth, I'd definitely recommend getting a HD camera. Even if you output in SD (which means you don't benefit in the resolution), the colours are so much brighter and vivid. Like Sean said, I bought a HD camera with the option to record in SD, untill I saved up for my MacBook Pro. Now, I'm really happy that I've did that. (I'm less happy with the camera not being as compatible with Mac as I thought, but that's a different topic). I reckon HD will be the new standard pretty soon and if you can find a decent HD camera 2nd hand, perhaps it shouldn't be too expensive.

Like Sean said, manual focus, exposure and white balance are a must. I believe even the cheapest and simplest cameras these days are equipped with a manual function though.

Again like Sean said; if you're filming for the internets and if you can find one within your budget, get a camera that records in progressive mode. Deinterlacing can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

Another thing to consider is tapeless vs. recording on tape. I personally can't grasp why the standard is still f'ing tape, but tapeless brings along some disadvantages as well; for one it's nearly always recorded in a compressed format, which means degraded quality (although it's hard to notice, it's the idea that it could be better that bugs me ), more processor intensive and less compatibility. It's not fun to be forced to convert your footage before you can edit it. Assuming you're working on Windows, you have a lot of editing software to choose from, so compatibility issues are less of an issue. Still something to look out for.

Secondly (and this is just a minor issue), tapeless recording could mean you can only record 20 minutes non-stop (at least that's the deal with my Sony HDR-SR7), before it creates a new clip, to prevent the individual files from becoming too big. This means you loose about a second of footage, because of the transition to the new file. Usually not a big deal, but I thought I'd mention it.

If you've got any more questions, I'm more than happy to give you my advice I'd love to see a quality vid from you man!