A question about cameras

Lately, I've really been debating purchasing another camera.

I've owned a MiniDV JVC camcorder for the last two years. It still functions perfectly well, as if I' only just took it out of its box. It's served me quite well.

Anyway, I was looking at buying a new High-Definition camera, but a thought struck me; if I want to purchase a new camera, shouldn't it be another standard tefinition one, so that I can shoot my next film with a truly multi-camera perspective with my JVC?

What do you think? Should I spend a small fortune on an HD camera and be forced to use one camera for every film, or should I buy another standard-def camera and use both it and my JVC together?

Thanks!
 
i tried using two different cameras. a standard panasonic handy cam thats very good quality and an XL1 camera... it wont work using two camera perspective unless they are the same definition quality because the quality of each camera is different and its very noticeable.
so go for HD but remember you need a HD editing software and blu ray disk burner if you want to use it to its full potential. use the HD camera by filming the same thing from different angles.. much better solution
 
Thanks for your reply! And sorry that it took so long for me to reply. I had a very busy weekend with no access to the internet.

Anyway, I just recently was able to try out the HD camera I'm looking at buying and the quality was great! Even when it was on its Standard-Def setting, it still looked better than regular cameras.

I found it online on amazon.com for $630 USD, so I'm going to start saving my money for that and a Mac Mini (and maybe Final Cut editing software). Hopefully I can do that by next summer...
 
Multicam doesn't make shooting films easier, it makes it harder - much harder. You have twice the complexity in lighting, sound, and shot logging to worry about, plus dealing with the extra complexity of synching and editing them when in post-production. Furthermore, you have to worry about finding more tapes, another tripod, another camera operator - I've tried it way back in the day, and quickly figured out that it's just not worth it.

Unless you plan on shooting live events and need the extra coverage (a good way to make money to finance your filmmaking!), then forget trying to work a multicam setup and just go for the new camera.

Besides, you can always use the combo HD cam and SD cam for live events - people are going to notice less of a difference than if you're working in an actual narrative film setting.

Independent of what ad2478 said, if you're set on buying a camera, get an HD one.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Mac Mini can edit HDV footage, and AFAIK that's all that's going to be rolling off a $630 cam. I can edit HDV footage on my 5 year old Powerbook G4.
 
I agree with the posters on not shooting multi camera. Unless there is a VERY good reason to do it (you're shooting a comedy film where there is a lot of quick paced back and forth dialogue between two characters, or shooting an action film with lots of stunts and explosions you only get one take on for example) there is just no reason to do it. It makes things harder not easier.
 
Multicam doesn't make shooting films easier, it makes it harder - much harder.

I disagree. I think multi-camera shoots can save time. It's not something I'd recommend doing on the fly or without the proper pre-pro. I've shot both ways and have found that with the right pre-production, a more-than-talented director of photography, relatively simple setups and talented camera operators who know exactly what each shot requires of them, plus the requisite letter-perfect shot logging, multi-camera shoots save enormous amounts of time on-set and post-production time.

That's not to say if you invite your two buddies who happen to own cameras over to the shoot that you'll save time...because you won't. It'll complicate this. To do multi-camera shoots properly requires a HITCHCOCKIAN LEVEL OF PREPRODUCTION. Every member of the photography team needs to know exactly what is expected of them for each shot.

And it can massively fail, too...we did a two camera shoot this summer and the "A" camera mysteriously failed, leaving us with just the handheld "B" which royally screwed an otherwise cool looking movie. But it hasn't deterred us, because were planning a THREE camera shoot for later this fall!

Traditionally it probably doesn't make sense to shoot multi-camera, but don't discount it outright when you engage in preproduction...especially in situations where your location is only available to you for a limited time.
 
Hope this helps... I use three DVcam cameras on every project. They are different cameras but the same identical format. When placed upon DVD-R, from uncompressed editing, one cannot tell the difference between cameras. Lighting is important (take the time to get a film look lighting quality). Sound is equally important. Three cameras give a lot more choices when editing and can save you from mediocre lighting and weak audio recording. It is called back-up. Three cameras allow more leeway with non professional talent. Tape is cheap. Add needed close-ups and cutaways, you can fly through a shoot. Editing is a breeze but catalogue. And you can make your talent look A+ by having the extra footage at your fingertips and taking the best of the best footage. Alleviates most continuity problems. Plenty of ambience for possible later audio add-ons.
BUT, you want to stay in format. AND, if you jump up to HD, ALL cameras need to be same. Good cameras to work with in threes are:
Panasonic AG-HPX170 (around $5,000.00 each) AG-HVX200A (a tad cheaper) and AG-HPX500 (more $$)
Sony has several HD cameras that work well together. Decide how you want to edit (system used) and choose based upon available cash
But do not mix format. It will be obvious.
 
Back
Top