• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Easiest post production-tape or card?

K

kazze

I hear positives on using a film camera that requires a card(sd or whichever) but that it is a bitch to edit later on. I read some where I would need a certain computor/editing is difficult...and so a tape is better for that...but in the long run more pricy.
Does anyone have experience with both that you could share?
Two different cameras I like are the Canon xha1 / jvc gyhd100
I realize that there is a lot invested in filming at the same time I don't to buy something to find out my laptop isn't going to be able to handle all the input needed.
Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I would go with the Canon XL2 , it comes with xlr connections for your shotgun mic which it comes with 20x zoom lens , 24,30,60 frames per second. 24 fps is the norm for movie making. Cinematic look feature, and the XL1 was used that I know of to film Blair Witch project obviously with no glide or steadicam. The camera brand new cost $2800 out of the box from Ritz Camera and on ebay I have seen it go for about $1200 used.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You keep mentioning The Blair Witch Project Project as if it was a great looking film, but it looked like amateur camcorder footage, as it was supposed to. And directorik is probably correct about the cameras used.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So is downloading tape/editing easier than the card? I had just heard that a card takes up a load of memory in a computor and is a pita to edit...requiring something extra....or does it really matter?
On the other had a tape only holds an hour at a time and are pricy overall.

I read somewhere that the Blair Witch Project had the most earnings per dollar spent on any other indie flick ever.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kazze said:
So is downloading tape/editing easier than the card? I had just heard that a card takes up a load of memory in a computor and is a pita to edit...requiring something extra....or does it really matter?
On the other had a tape only holds an hour at a time and are pricy overall.

I read somewhere that the Blair Witch Project had the most earnings per dollar spent on any other indie flick ever.
Click to expand...

if $6 per hour of tape is too expensive for you then
the card/HDD is essential.

I prefer tape. It's a great archive medium. I even make
a tape back up with my new JVC camera that only uses
SDHC media. I don't like the MPEG-2 compression used
with most HDD cameras. I have no experience editing on
a PC but I know the MPEG-2 compression used on most
HDD cameras needs to be converted to .mov (QuickTime)
to be used with Final Cut. It's one more step, but it doesn't
make post production any more difficult.

As you point out in your first post, kazze, there is a lot
invested in making a movie - it's not always about what is
easy. I own the JVC HD110 and have used the Canon
XH-A1. Both are fine cameras. I bought the JVC. Either one
you decide on you will like and get a lot of use from.

And if you choose to save some money by not using a tape
camera you will be quite happy with that choice, too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
indietalk said:
You keep mentioning The Blair Witch Project Project as if it was a great looking film, but it looked like amateur camcorder footage, as it was supposed to. And directorik is probably correct about the cameras used.
Click to expand...

I know, they shot blair witch that way because it's supposed to look like a mix of crappy student film and camcorder footage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top