theBRB Banner

 Forum      Theater      Contests      Stockpile

Welcome Guest.

Login | Register

Poll
Question: Which Professional Camcorder should I get?
JVC GR-HD1 - 3 (27.3%)
Sony HDR-FX1 - 3 (27.3%)
None - 5 (45.5%)
Total Voters: 1

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Professional Camcorder  (Read 3973 times)
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« on: April 11, 2005, 09:03:46 AM »

JVC GR-HD1
I happen to like this one because you can't beat the Lux....it has 35 LUX!

Sony HDR-FX1
It shoots in High Def., and does almost everything like the JVC pro. camcorder. However it only has 3 Lux.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2005, 09:06:10 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2005, 09:21:03 AM »

Ok I just read up some more.

The Image Sensor of the Sony cam. has 1/3 inch CCD x 3 Super HAD 16:9, where as the JVC cam. has 1/3 CCD x 1.

The JVC cam. has 35 Lux whereas the Sony cam. only has 3 Lux

The audio recording system of the Sony cam. is DV (12bit,16bit) HDV (MPEG2, 48kHz), whereas the JVC cam. audio recording system is DV(12 and 16 bit, 48kHz) HDV (MPEG1, Layer2)

The Audio Out Terminal for the Sony cam. is Stereo, whereas the Audio out Terminal for the JVC cam. has RCA x 2

The Sony cam. has no XLR ports, whereas the JVC cam. has XLR ports

The 16:9 recording on the Sony cam. is native whereas on the JVC cam. is only an effect

That about it, I like the JVC only because of the Lux but it lacks in alot of the other specs. like 16:9 recording and the fact that it doesn't record in 24p. I don't know what I should get.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2005, 09:26:30 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

JustinZ

Forum Admin


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1198


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2005, 09:42:55 AM »

Are you only considering HD cams?  I'm still not convinced that HD is quite ready.  There are still a lot of issues like editing tools, interaction with other programs, processing power required, etc., and I'm still not sold on MPEG-2 as an editing format.  Now's a tough time to buy a camera.  HD is clearly the way of the future, but it's not really here yet.  I think DV still has some good years left (at least until the DVD format is revamped for HD video).  If I had to buy a high-end camera right now, I'd probably stick with DV and get a DVX-100A.

Justin
 
Logged

They thought it was love, but it was only the caffeine.
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2005, 08:57:43 AM »

I'm reading and searching Justin, but it doesn't say if it records at 16:9.

EDIT: No wait I found it, it does.

But what about the Canon Optura Xi? What do you think about that one?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2005, 09:00:06 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

JustinZ

Forum Admin


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1198


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2005, 09:50:53 AM »

I own an Optura Xi, and it is a good camera, but it is not a high-end camera.  It has only 1 CCD and makes very good use of it, but it is geared more for the amateur who wants excellent quality and good manual controls.  If you're looking for a professional-quality cam (I assume you are since you titled this thread, "Professional Camcorder), you want 3 CCDs.  Here's the way I would break down the current market:

HD cameras
JVC GR-HD1
Sony HDR-FX1

High-End Professional
Panasonic DVX-100A
Canon XL2
Canon XL1s

Semi-Pro/Professional
Canon GL2
Sony DCR-VX2100
Panasonic GS400

Consumer/Amateur
Canon Optura Xi

The GS400 sits in between the pro and consumer cameras.  This review says that it performs as well as a GL2 but doesn't look as professional, physically.  It's probably the best in the price/performance ratio, but if you're looking for a truly professional camera, one of the higher-end models might be better for you.

Justin
 
Logged

They thought it was love, but it was only the caffeine.
Blank avatar

Jamball



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 403


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2005, 01:54:20 PM »

Obi,

What is your understanding of LUX?  Why does that appeal so much to you?

I have to agree with Justin on the fact that I don't think HDV is quite ready yet.  

Why so eager?

--Jamball
Logged

Want to watch some great indenpendent films?  Check out http://www.unseenhands.com' target='_blank'>http://www.unseenhands.com.

http://www.cafepress.com/unseenhands' target='_blank'>http://www.cafepress.com/unseenhands  -- If you want to look cool, buy our stuff.
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2005, 11:45:51 PM »

I don't like either of those. HD is pointless unless you can edit it... and you would have to get more software to deal with it. I don't know if/believe that you can use the stuff you're used to working on with HD... I might be wrong.

The one camera that seems to be either worse than or just about as good as the other is over $1000 more at B&H... why get that one?

The HD feature really isn't worth it, I dont think. Also, for any kind of keying, you don't want to be working with MPEG video. That just doesn't make much sense, does it? Wink

You are looking at cams just as expensive as a GL2.... just get that!

At Ebay, they have packages for $2500 or so that include a couple extra lenses, a good tripods, filters, extra batteries, and just about anything else you can think of. Look for those.


Note: what exactly is Lux. I looked it up and it says its about how much light the cam can pick up, and this is what I thouht... but what does that mean? How is it measured? Higher means it can pick up with less light? I'm confused.
Logged
Blank avatar

rogue_09

Administrator?


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1910


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2005, 01:02:58 AM »

Actually, from what Jedi_Spiff over at TFN says, the mpeg compression is nothing to worry about and the resolution and image quality from the FX-1 is very impressive.  He hasn't shown any blue/greenscreen footage, but I bet keying it would be rather nice.

And Premiere Pro 1.5 can handle HD.
Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2005, 01:14:34 AM »

hmmm.... Ok... but can AE? can your computer render that enough to make it worthwhile? and... do you really need it... why not just get a great miniDV cam... and go with that, til you need a new one at least...
Logged
Blank avatar

Funk, E

« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2005, 04:36:27 AM »

Apparently AE can handle HD, considering that Spiff's already released a film with effects that he used his camera for...
Logged
Blank avatar

JustinZ

Forum Admin


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1198


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2005, 05:08:05 AM »

Another factor to consider with HD is that there is no good delivery mechanism for HD yet.  If you want to play it on your DVD player, you have to downsample it to DV resolution anyway.  5 years from now when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are available it will be better.  I agree that the images Spiff has posted are beautiful, but in my opinion, there's little point in buying a camera that creates beautiful video when there's no good way for other people to view it.

Justin
 
Logged

They thought it was love, but it was only the caffeine.
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2005, 09:19:15 AM »

yep. Also.... once the tech. becomes cheaper, so will the cams, hopefully.
Logged
Blank avatar

ccfilms



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 644


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2005, 05:10:23 PM »

Justin's last post included all my comments. HD is beautiful, but not standard yet. It should be though. It will be.


Also, GL2....anyone who thinks the GL2 rocks, no. I saw some footage from a GL2 on TV once (a TV show done with it). I was very un-impressed with the quality (it was on TLC).

AG-DVX100A or XL2 are my choice miniDV cameras. Cheesy
Logged

Jeremy Krakowski
http://www.myspace.com/ccfilms' target='_blank'>MySpace.com/CCFilms
http://www.myspace.com/jaykrak' target='_blank'>MySpace.com/JayKrak - MUSIC MYSPACE
Blank avatar

Jamball



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 403


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2005, 06:07:22 AM »

You must have had something in your eye when watching the GL-2 footage, because that camera kicks the butt.

LUX is a measure of how intense a light source is per area.  Ideally, you want a camera that can shoot in a low LUX.   That means it requires less light per area to still pick up an image.  Sony is most famous for having camera's the shoot well in low light.

I do agree the HD isn't quite ready for main line.  But, if you've got $3500 burning a hole in your pocket, get it anyway.  It's your money and eventually HD will be here.

--Jamball
Logged

Want to watch some great indenpendent films?  Check out http://www.unseenhands.com' target='_blank'>http://www.unseenhands.com.

http://www.cafepress.com/unseenhands' target='_blank'>http://www.cafepress.com/unseenhands  -- If you want to look cool, buy our stuff.
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2005, 10:49:13 AM »

Well, as I told Justin on AIM I already made my decision. I'm getting the Panasonic GS400.

Also Jamball, I was under the impression that the higher the Lux, the better.



*I'm going to start a new poll, I don't know how to edit this one without messing with the votes that were in already.[/i]
« Last Edit: April 14, 2005, 12:04:49 PM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: