I've been big into visual arts for a while, mostly drawing and photography. I've had a lot of concepts in my head that I couldn't duplicate with any still medium. After a lot of thought, I decided I would like to get into film. The films I foresee myself making are mostly conceptual with little to no dialogue. I would work closely with a talented musician to create a visual/sound experience that conveys a story in an unconventional way. The first big quesiton is digital or film. As of right now, I feel I'd prefer getting a digital camera. I'm fairly certain I would like a high-definition digital camera. I wouldn't like to spend much in excess of $4,000. If anybody can point me in the right direction or give me any advice, please let me know. I know the question I asked is vague and I understand it probably isn't easy to answer. I get the same questions as a still photographer and do have a hard time answering them. Thanks in advance.
Camera question...
- Thread starter markmarkmark
- Start date
Thanks. What types of benefits would I see if I got this one opposed to the one you suggested?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XH-A1-H...4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1194299814&sr=8-1
I was recently given a decent sum of money as an investment, and I'm at a young, ambitious age right now and I have been successful in still photography up to this point so I wanted to delve into film. I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to put down a decent sum of money on a camera again, so I'd like to make a purchase now that will not require me to upgrade in the near future. I don't know much about film as of now, but the reading will soon begin. I do want to have full creative control over every aspect of the films I shoot. From still photography I have learned to be aware of all aspects of the shot and to not let the camera make any decisions for me without my prior knowledge.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XH-A1-H...4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1194299814&sr=8-1
I was recently given a decent sum of money as an investment, and I'm at a young, ambitious age right now and I have been successful in still photography up to this point so I wanted to delve into film. I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to put down a decent sum of money on a camera again, so I'd like to make a purchase now that will not require me to upgrade in the near future. I don't know much about film as of now, but the reading will soon begin. I do want to have full creative control over every aspect of the films I shoot. From still photography I have learned to be aware of all aspects of the shot and to not let the camera make any decisions for me without my prior knowledge.
It has essentially all the same internals, but the A1 offers a bit more manual control, though most of that can still be done with the HV20.
Personally, I would probably opt for a slightly cheaper camera and spend money on good audio acquisition gear (a nice shotgun mic, boom, etc) and lighting gear. Because lights are the main thing most people don't seem to invest nearly enough in, and audio is actually much more important to the final product than the video itself. It's been said time and again that it's not so much the gear that makes the film, but how it's used..
Basically what that means is that a video shot with a cheap single chip standard definition camera that has been properly lit, sounds great, was shot well, and contains an interesting story will most likely be much more watchable than something shot with a more expensive camera.
Don't let me talk you out of the A1 though.. If you're looking for something more along those lines, it's a great camera. I just think you'd be better off spreading your money around a bit rather than blowing the whole wad on a more expensive camera. That's my $.02.. For what it's worth.
Personally, I would probably opt for a slightly cheaper camera and spend money on good audio acquisition gear (a nice shotgun mic, boom, etc) and lighting gear. Because lights are the main thing most people don't seem to invest nearly enough in, and audio is actually much more important to the final product than the video itself. It's been said time and again that it's not so much the gear that makes the film, but how it's used..
Basically what that means is that a video shot with a cheap single chip standard definition camera that has been properly lit, sounds great, was shot well, and contains an interesting story will most likely be much more watchable than something shot with a more expensive camera.
Don't let me talk you out of the A1 though.. If you're looking for something more along those lines, it's a great camera. I just think you'd be better off spreading your money around a bit rather than blowing the whole wad on a more expensive camera. That's my $.02.. For what it's worth.
I know what you mean. Most of the films I have in mind will be mostly free of dialogue. I'm going to work in close harmony with a musician to have music composed to match the visuals and set the mood. Manual control is extremely important to me. I understand what you mean about lighting. The same goes for still photography. Investing in the best camera and lenses means very little if you don't know how to properly use light. Will the quality of the Canon I posted a link to be poor in any regards? I'm not looking for an overly epic Hollywood style film, but I also don't want a home movie look to it. I heard that with a DV like the one I posted a link to, I'll have a harder timme getting shallow DOF. As far as the sound equipment goes, it's not of prime importance to me right now. I was told that the boom mic on the Canon along with some cover for it would provide pretty decent sound. Like I said, I'll be doing mostly dialogue free for the time being. I'd like to invest in getting the best visuals for now. As far as lighting, I'm going to be pretty cheap with that at the start. I always appreciated the simplicity and artificiality of the lighting in some of the films from the 1950s and earlier. I figure I'll do a lot of work with thrift store lamps and the like until I have the cash to invest my money in some legitimate lighting. Thanks again...I really do appreciate your help.
DoF is a physics thing based on iris size and Field of View of the capture medium (ccd, cmos or film)...you'll have the same problems with controlling DoF on a 1/3" chip as you would on 8mm film...2/3" chip is about 16mm and 1.3" chips would be 35mm (good luck affording one as of right now...even in the 2/3" family).
For easier access to the manual controls of the camera, the XHA1 will give you more direct control of focus, zoom, iris and shutter speed than the HV20. It also costs more, but I've shot with the A1 and it produces beautiful pictures.
For easier access to the manual controls of the camera, the XHA1 will give you more direct control of focus, zoom, iris and shutter speed than the HV20. It also costs more, but I've shot with the A1 and it produces beautiful pictures.
It should be said that you really don't give up all control with the HV20 though. It will do 24P, which is most decidely "unvideoy" looking -- so long as you keep your shutter speed locked at 1/48 or higher in conjunction with the 24p.. I mention that because one of the main things that makes video look like video is a shutter speed equal to or slower than your frame rate. That's not really possible with film, as a shutter speed equal to the frame rate would mean the shutter is open 100% of the time, so a speed slower that the frame rate would mean the shutter is open greater than 100% of the time, which is physically not possible, but with the magic of digital it can be made to work. Anyway, the point is, shooting at 24p will mimic the motion of film, and keeping your framerate locked at 1/48th (which would equate to a 180 degree shutter angle on a film camera meaning the shutter is open for half the time the film frame is in the gate) or faster -- but preferably just 1/48th unless you're going for a "Saving Private Ryan - Storming Normandy Beach" effect. The faster the shutter speed, the smaller degree shutter.. so for example, at 24 frames/sec, a 1/120th shutter setting would equate to a 72 degree shutter on a film camera. It would give the slightly random strobing kind of effect as seen on that beach scene in Saving Private Ryan..
Of course, depending on what you're after a fast shutter may be ideal. I know the HV20 will do up to 1/2000th of a second shutter speed. Which if you were shooting with slow motion in mind might be a good option. For that I'd probably shoot 60i footage with a very high (1/1000th or 1/2000th) shutter speed, then convert that to 60p in post and play it back at 24 frame/second to match the speed of the rest of the footage. But I haven't experimented with that, so don't quote me on that.
Lighting is really going to get you further in terms of your footage not looking like a cheap home camcorder than a more expensive camera. Also I think it should be stressed that the "simplicity and artificiality of lighting" you're referring to from old movies will take A LOT of light. Those films were almost all shot on a sound stage with thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of watts of light.
But again, the internals of both the A1 and the HV20 are identical.. same sensor, same chips, etc.. the A1 is a bit larger package that offers a bit more manual control, but essentially the same control can be wielded over the HV20 -- it's just a little less intuitive. Either camera is going to give you great images IF you properly light your scenes and shoot it in an intelligent way. Just grabbing a camera, turning it on, and maybe using a couple thrift shop lamps might look OK, but it's never going to look as good as an image that's properly composed, and properly exposed.
DV generally needs to be lit with more light than film. Not because it's harder to get an image -- most cameras will shoot in relatively low light. But because the latitude is so much smaller with the digital format, you have to pump a lot of light into your shadow areas and keep things pretty evenly lit to prevent noise, grain, etc.
As knightly touched on, the Shallow Depth of Field is based on the size of the iris and the size of the capture area. The smaller the iris, the more will be in focus -- regardless of capture area size. This is why with a pinhole camera everything is essentially in perfect focus regardless of the distance from the camera. The larger the opening in the iris, the less is in focus, however with a smaller capture area such as those used in digital video cameras, you can't narrow the depth of field much. There are a couple ways to do it though...
First, you can back far away from your subject, then zoom in to make them the size you want them to be in the frame. This will be helped by opening the iris up as wide as you can, and then stopping the image down with ND filters to keep it from overexposing. The nice benefit this has is that it will compress the image, so the background doesn't feel so far away, but it will also be blurred out a bit so the softer focus behind your subject will be pleasing to the eye.
Secondly, you can use a larger imaging plane. As knightly mentioned getting a camera with a larger imaging plane (CCD or CMOS chip) is going to get prohibitively expensive before you get quality results... so what can you do? Well, there are a multitude of 35mm adapters available. These will give you all the benefits of a larger imaging plane -- which basically is that it allows you to get a nice shallow depth of field. But the cost stays relatively low, because your run of the mill camcorder that will let you lock the exposure, focus, and frame rate now becomes a pretty high-end machine.
So, for roughly half the cost of the A1, you can get an HV20 and a nice Redrock Micro, or Brevis Adapter.. that'll give you the same quality image, with the shallow depth of field, and money left over to get yourself a 35mm lens or two, and/or some lighting.
The only caveat is that the extra glass involved with the 35mm lens and ground glass focus screen will eat a bit of light, so you'll need to pump up your light level even more. That's why it's important to get the fastest lenses you can afford. People are constantly raving about the 50mm f1.4 nikon lens to use with these adapters.
Of course, depending on what you're after a fast shutter may be ideal. I know the HV20 will do up to 1/2000th of a second shutter speed. Which if you were shooting with slow motion in mind might be a good option. For that I'd probably shoot 60i footage with a very high (1/1000th or 1/2000th) shutter speed, then convert that to 60p in post and play it back at 24 frame/second to match the speed of the rest of the footage. But I haven't experimented with that, so don't quote me on that.
Lighting is really going to get you further in terms of your footage not looking like a cheap home camcorder than a more expensive camera. Also I think it should be stressed that the "simplicity and artificiality of lighting" you're referring to from old movies will take A LOT of light. Those films were almost all shot on a sound stage with thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of watts of light.
But again, the internals of both the A1 and the HV20 are identical.. same sensor, same chips, etc.. the A1 is a bit larger package that offers a bit more manual control, but essentially the same control can be wielded over the HV20 -- it's just a little less intuitive. Either camera is going to give you great images IF you properly light your scenes and shoot it in an intelligent way. Just grabbing a camera, turning it on, and maybe using a couple thrift shop lamps might look OK, but it's never going to look as good as an image that's properly composed, and properly exposed.
DV generally needs to be lit with more light than film. Not because it's harder to get an image -- most cameras will shoot in relatively low light. But because the latitude is so much smaller with the digital format, you have to pump a lot of light into your shadow areas and keep things pretty evenly lit to prevent noise, grain, etc.
As knightly touched on, the Shallow Depth of Field is based on the size of the iris and the size of the capture area. The smaller the iris, the more will be in focus -- regardless of capture area size. This is why with a pinhole camera everything is essentially in perfect focus regardless of the distance from the camera. The larger the opening in the iris, the less is in focus, however with a smaller capture area such as those used in digital video cameras, you can't narrow the depth of field much. There are a couple ways to do it though...
First, you can back far away from your subject, then zoom in to make them the size you want them to be in the frame. This will be helped by opening the iris up as wide as you can, and then stopping the image down with ND filters to keep it from overexposing. The nice benefit this has is that it will compress the image, so the background doesn't feel so far away, but it will also be blurred out a bit so the softer focus behind your subject will be pleasing to the eye.
Secondly, you can use a larger imaging plane. As knightly mentioned getting a camera with a larger imaging plane (CCD or CMOS chip) is going to get prohibitively expensive before you get quality results... so what can you do? Well, there are a multitude of 35mm adapters available. These will give you all the benefits of a larger imaging plane -- which basically is that it allows you to get a nice shallow depth of field. But the cost stays relatively low, because your run of the mill camcorder that will let you lock the exposure, focus, and frame rate now becomes a pretty high-end machine.
So, for roughly half the cost of the A1, you can get an HV20 and a nice Redrock Micro, or Brevis Adapter.. that'll give you the same quality image, with the shallow depth of field, and money left over to get yourself a 35mm lens or two, and/or some lighting.
The only caveat is that the extra glass involved with the 35mm lens and ground glass focus screen will eat a bit of light, so you'll need to pump up your light level even more. That's why it's important to get the fastest lenses you can afford. People are constantly raving about the 50mm f1.4 nikon lens to use with these adapters.
Last edited:
Thanks so much guys. This lighting thing is scaring me a bit. I didn't want to give the impression that I planned on throwing together a video without any thought or effort. I've been into still photography so I do have an eye for composition, lighting, and exposure. I just didn't plan on emptying my wallet for lighting equipment, but it seems like that may be necessary. For the first few years I was into photography, I only used ambient light. I shot bands, models, etc. using only ambient lighting. It was really tough at times, but it forced me to be creative and to use what the sun gave me. I just recently splurged on some speedlight flashes, wireless transmitters, etc, and thought maybe I could avoid spending even more on other lighting equipment.
Somebody recently told me that I may be better off getting the XL2 rather than the XHA1. From what I read, the XHA1 seems like the better choice...who should I believe?
Somebody recently told me that I may be better off getting the XL2 rather than the XHA1. From what I read, the XHA1 seems like the better choice...who should I believe?
Depends on what you're looking for.. the XL2 is standard def, whereas the A1 is HDV.. for my money if I was going to go standard def I'l look into a DVX100, or a GL1 or 2. The GL series are basically the same mechanics of the XL series, but ever so slightly dumbed down (and without the interchangable lens). The testament of the GL series is they essentially will go forever. People have touted them as being virtually indestructible. That's a hell of a benefit if ever I've heard one.
You absolutely can usee ambient light, during the day, outside.. but once you start shooting inside or at night, or any other circumstance not very well lit by the sun you'll need lights, and ideally a good bevy of them in a range of power levels.
Sure, a video camera will pick up a picture with a nominal level of light being supplied, but to save yourself headaches in post with potentially noisy footage and such, you're always better off having enough candle power at your beck and call. Wow I'm starting to feel like a lighting nazi.
---
Incidentally, I apologize for being so verbose today.. I'm putting off working on a project for the day job. Stupid as it's due in the morning, but it's the computer programmer's way..
You absolutely can usee ambient light, during the day, outside.. but once you start shooting inside or at night, or any other circumstance not very well lit by the sun you'll need lights, and ideally a good bevy of them in a range of power levels.
Sure, a video camera will pick up a picture with a nominal level of light being supplied, but to save yourself headaches in post with potentially noisy footage and such, you're always better off having enough candle power at your beck and call. Wow I'm starting to feel like a lighting nazi.
---
Incidentally, I apologize for being so verbose today.. I'm putting off working on a project for the day job. Stupid as it's due in the morning, but it's the computer programmer's way..
Last edited:
Is there any lighting setup or a website that you could recommend? i have no clue about prices of these things.
again it all depends on what you're going to be shooting..
this is a decent beginning tutorial on film lighting:
http://www.jamesarnett.com/lighting.html
As for gear, you could probably find some used stuff on ebay, otherwise a decent lowel pro kit would probably serve you well... if you prefer to go the budget route, Scott Spears has some good info on his website.
this is a decent beginning tutorial on film lighting:
http://www.jamesarnett.com/lighting.html
As for gear, you could probably find some used stuff on ebay, otherwise a decent lowel pro kit would probably serve you well... if you prefer to go the budget route, Scott Spears has some good info on his website.
That was a big help. I would probably be able to invest about $1000 in lighting equipment right off the bat. I already have light stands, tripods, and umbrellas, so that should save me a bit of money there. Thanks again for the help. Much appreciated.
