which camera to choose for short movie shooting?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Larry, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. Larry

    Larry Guest


    We have a project of shooting a short movie and don't really know which
    video cam to choose.

    Our goal is to get a result close to the 16mm/B&W images of a movie such
    as "Tetsuo"

    First, our idea was to buy a Panasonic AG-DVX100 that seems to be widely
    praised among digital filmmakers who want to get a "cine-look" (even if,
    unless I'm wrong, movies such as "28 Days" have been shot on Canon).

    Now we're wondering if there's no other choice. To your opinion, what's
    best considering the result we want to obtain and our diffision goal (we
    hope to submit the short movie to some festivals)?

    What about HD cams, such as Panasonic HVX-200, or even Sony HVR-Z1E
    (even though people seem to have mixed opinions about HDV)?

    Thanks for help and advices.
    Larry, Jul 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry

    Bernie Guest

    The top end DV cameras like the Panasonic AG-DVX100 and Sony HVR-Z1E
    are pretty similar in the quality of their results. If you work in HDV
    you'll get a higher resolution picture at the expense of a more
    difficult editing experience.

    Something you might look at is the Mini35
    http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35.php - a device for
    putting 35mm film lenses on a dv camera which will give you the depth
    of field of 35mm film. Then you can use all the various film effect
    processes in your editor to get what you want.

    Bernie, Jul 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wait, wait. You compare apples to oranges:

    Panasonic DVX100b vs Sony VX2100
    Panasonic HVX200 vs Sony HVRZ1E/A/J

    Martin Heffels, Jul 23, 2006
  4. Larry

    Bernie Guest

    I look through the camera, or look at a monitor. I see pictures. Some
    are wider than others, some have more resolution. Some cost more, some
    less. Compared to a 35mm film camera, all of the top of the range DV
    cameras are quite similar.

    The Holy Grail of DV level shooting is to get 35mm film style results
    for DV prices, which is what I think the man wants. I just offered some
    thoughts form my 40 years of experience, that's all. Why is there
    always someone who wants to quibble instead of offering constructive
    advice to the person who first posted?
    Bernie, Jul 23, 2006
  5. The HDV-camera's which can record mini-DV, offer a better quality mini-DV.
    So there is a difference. For somebody wanting to shoot a short-movie which
    will do the rounds at festivals, this can have a big impact on how the
    picture looks like when projected on a big screen.
    But you left out a couple: lighting and art-direction. A mini-DV camera
    with a 35mm lens-adapter alone, won't do the trick.
    That's what you get when you stick out your neck in a forum inhabited
    mostly by pros. Sorry :)

    Martin Heffels, Jul 23, 2006
  6. Or professional trolls.
    Richard Crowley, Jul 24, 2006
  7. Garbage in, garbage out. And you know that rule
    all too well.

    Martin Heffels, Jul 24, 2006
  8. Non-response noted.
    Richard Crowley, Jul 24, 2006
  9. You have claimed to support the notion that when for instance creating
    DVD's, 35mm-to-DVD will look better than VHS-to-DVD.
    The same rule applies to acquisition. If you record the signal of a higher
    quality camera (like the HVR-Z1x) with a better lens, and a higher
    resolution sensor to mini-DV, the quality will be better than recording
    with a mini-DV camera (like the DVX100b).
    You know this rule as well, mr Crowley, but since you have decided to give
    me a silly treat, I better type it out for you. Disappointing sir!

    Martin Heffels, Jul 24, 2006
  10. You are making the assumption that HDV cameras
    are "higher quality" just because they make a wider
    Richard Crowley, Jul 24, 2006
  11. Because they bring in more pixels. Let me make it easier for you. An 8x10
    print form a 8Mpixel stills-camera, will look better than one from a
    3Mpixels stills-camera. Same for video. Didn't you drink your cup of coffee
    yet, that you play "stupid" all of a sudden and forgot that you have said
    the same thing before? It's rather childish.

    Martin Heffels, Jul 24, 2006
  12. Sorry, I was thinking of professional cameras.
    I'll leave you to the prosumer stuff. Have a nice day.
    Richard Crowley, Jul 24, 2006
  13. Larry

    Larry Guest

    Bernie a écrit :
    No no, not 35mm, just something that could look like some good old 16mm
    and that wouldn't look terrible if seen on a "big" screen.
    Larry, Jul 24, 2006
  14. Same applies for professional camera's.
    Funny, you are discrediting yourself more than your attempt
    to discredit me with remarks like that, because these rules
    apply to every "band" of camera. And you know that as well.....

    Martin Heffels, Jul 24, 2006
  15. Larry

    Bernie Guest


    I've replied direct to avoid all this bollocks.....
    Bernie, Jul 24, 2006
  16. Larry

    deasm007 Guest

    Why not shoot betacam? If you can get your hands on one (Which I'm sure
    someone owes you a favor) go with that and just a little arri kit and
    your set... Thats what i do.
    deasm007, Jul 25, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.