Hello,

I am an aspiring film maker and I have done some things with less expensive cameras but I am looking to upgrade...

I have around 5,000 to spend and I don't know if I should go with mini DV or 8-16mm....

If you get something like a DVX100a (mini DV) it'll be cheaper in the long run. If you feel you can spring for the extra money in film costs, go for it; but MiniDV and HD seem to be the best way to go for low-budget stuff.

You could always rent a film camera though...

depends...

how much extra are you talking... say for an hour and a half film that goes smooth

and is the DVX100a better than XL2 or sony cameras?

'sup, good StrangeMind and welcome to the boards. :cool:

how much extra are you talking... say for an hour and a half film that goes smooth

I'll dig up someone's numbers from an older thread in a bit, but if you're working with 5k it's fairly safe to say that that's not quite enough fundage to do it on 16mm.

There are several very good video cameras in the 3.5 to 5k range... and when all's said and done you'll still have the camera (for future use) and have only spent $30-ish on extra video tapes.

What kind of project are you thinking about, btw? :)

For all aspects of filmmaking... documentaries, shorts, feature lengths even maybe :)

and is the DVX100a better than XL2 or sony cameras?

It's all a matter of preference, but most people tend to prefer the DVX100a. From all reports, that's the camera of choice for most indie-filmmakers.

MiniDV is a great, friendly, easy format to get started with. Hell, done properly, you could go all the way to distribution on MiniDV. Good thing is- tapes are cheap, and the resources for digital video are practically endless.

But in the filmmaking world isn't it frowned upon

This might look a bit tricky as formatted, but it appeared to be roughly accurate.

90 minute film comparisons (http://www.indietalk.com/showpost.php?p=30887&postcount=41)

(Shooting ratio was 10:1 , btw.)

But in the filmmaking world isn't it frowned upon

I'm assuming you're talking about how film might be preferable to digital?

Everything has its place.

:cool:

damn... I should probably go with digital for my first cam hehe

Theres no way to shoot a 16mm feature for under 5k unless your pop owns a post production facility with film developing. Even then 5k is less than a tiny amount for a filming budget let alone the promotional stuff you do after the film is locked.

I, in contrast, would not recommend purchasing a high end DV camera at this time such as an XL2 or DVX100a because it will all be totally obsolete in 2-5 years. 5 years down the line anything you produce today in standard def will be as silly as shooting with a VHS camera is today. Instead, get a ~1k DV camera and play around until you find the hidef cam of your choice within the next few years and make sure you have the hardware to support it.

Also, get a shotgun mic, boom pole (or make the pole). Become one with your sound.

are there any cams in specific ud recommend?

but sounds like good advice

Depends on how much you know about these cameras... if you don't know much getting a high(er) end camera isn't going to be of any use.

How much experience do you have and how much technical knowledge? Technical knowledge is necessary for artistic expression in this field.

Personally the camera that has become standard for us to recommend is the Panasonic GS150 because of its 16:9 chips and high pixel count, plus its 3CCD color. And it comes in at under $700. You could do some nice looking shorts on that guy I bet. But if you are bound and determined to shoot a feature on SD, Id go with a DVX100a or XL2, or an FX1/Z1 for HDV right now. In the next 2 years there should be at least 4 new HD cameras around or under $10k available, so that why Im saying try to wait as long as you can, but for now make those shorts on mini-dv because its real affordable and save up for the HD cam of your dreams.

WideShot, you spoke of shooting VHS today as silly, and this has got me wondering since I shot with a digital8 camera on the weekend. The results are far better than I was expecting, better than the results I have with my minidv camera. The picture wasn't as sharp and the colours were better. Is there much of a difference between minidv and super8 or vhs?

WideShot, you spoke of shooting VHS today as silly, and this has got me wondering since I shot with a digital8 camera on the weekend. The results are far better than I was expecting, better than the results I have with my minidv camera. The picture wasn't as sharp and the colours were better. Is there much of a difference between minidv and super8 or vhs?

Yes!

Evidence:
Step 1- Click here or on the names below for direct links (http://www.superguncinema.com/movies.html)

Step 2- Watch the Macbeth 3000 (http://www.superguncinema.com/movies/MB3K_TRAILER_large.wmv) trailer

Step 3- Watch the "trailer" for "Hamlet (http://www.superguncinema.com/movies/HamletTrailer.wmv)"

Macbeth 3000 = MiniDV (1CCD)
Hamlet: The Original Motion Picture = Hi8

Granted, we had more extensive lighting, but mid-range MiniDV beats high-end Hi8 in my books.

EDIT: Oh my, I just realized that entire plug is shamless self-promotion. Sorry! :D

funny you mention this, a friend who is a documentary maker down the road from me just bought a digital 8 Sony (looks like a HC1 in the back I swear), and I used it for the product shots and demo video for my SteadyGrip device this last weekend. I was shocked at how good of quality this thing put out. Noticably the latitude wasnt there, it blew out highlights, and there seemed to be a little more grain than usual but really the quality was pretty good, much better than I was expecting. But see thats because its basically recording mini-dv on a hi8 tape. hi8 and VHS however, are infinitely inferior to this. SuperVHS is above hi8 but I would only put the best SuperVHS on par with a $500 mini-dv.

Mini-DV is pretty much the defacto SD now, or DVCam. It really comes down to the quality of the optics (which have gotten better on video cameras over the years), the processing (which obviously has come a long way since 15 lbs cameras), the recording media (miniDV is nothing new but it is high quality), and the codec used if there is one (hence digital vs. analog). As in two cameras totally the same in every way except recording media and codec are going to be different even - DVCPro50 will be superiour to DV25 (Standard mini-dv).

So no you weren't imagining it, d8 can look pretty good.. and with firewire out it can act pretty good too. But then again for $100 more you can have a true minidv camera.

Getting back to the economics of film, remember Robert Rodriguez made his first feature, "El Mariachi", for $7000 total. Take a look at his "10 minute film school"

http://www.exposure.co.uk/makers/minute.html

edit: Oh, yes. Hi, I'm Bob, and I'm a film buff. I saw mention of this board on some other board, so here I am.

Getting back to the economics of film, remember Robert Rodriguez made his first feature, "El Mariachi", for $7000 total. Take a look at his "10 minute film school"

http://www.exposure.co.uk/makers/minute.html

edit: Oh, yes. Hi, I'm Bob, and I'm a film buff. I saw mention of this board on some other board, so here I am.

Yeah, but he borrowed the camera and did all the work himself. He's a freakishly talented person.

Welcome Bob!

And he had no distribution and then once he got it they spent 10's of thousands cleaning it up in post.

He called on every favor he could, shot on short ends, borrowed the camera etc etc etc. Thats on 16mm 15 years ago.

I am totally frustrated. After buying a couple of Bolex 16mm cameras, along with a Konvas 35mm (with a large inventory of lenses), I read an article in which a director and actor Dennis Leary stated that current high definition production costs versus film costs are so widely apart there is no consideration as to which format one should consider. For example, one producer pointed out that the cost of one HD casette is 1/50the cost of 35mm film purchases, developing, dailies, shipping, etc. You have instant product with the HD cassette and you have to wait for the film return and risk damage by the shipping carriers. They did point out, however, that film still has its uses. They recommend that all production companies go to HD 1080i but keep film cameras for slow-motion, fast-action and shooting that is so active that it might damage the HD video camera. So, I guess I'll have to spring for an HD video 1080i camera and keep one Bolex 16mm and the Konvas 35mm for occasional shots. Meanwhile, I have 20 cans of 16 and 35mm film aging in the fridge.

Wild Bill
Columbia SC

Well, keep in mind if the production is good enough, Hollywood really dosen't care if you shoot on film or video. Case in point:

Blair Witch
28 Days
Open Water
Dancer in the Dark
The Poor and Hungry

There's a few more, but these movies, shot on standard definition video are very good and did well.

Don't forget all the movies being shot today in HD that are being transferred to film. Some of those you can't tell the difference.

I opted for a Sony PD170. Why? Lighting. I'm shooting a vampire flick and it's all shot at night. Excellent color definition at 1 lux really makes a difference. I just wish it could shoot at 24p, but that will be my next camera.

Ooh, hockey's on. Gotta go.