Forums > Film Making & Machinima

3CCD or HD?

Posts (18)

  • Zimmy

    Zimmy

    #3182442 - 13 years ago

    A friend and I are looking at video camera's to start doing some film making and have come across this descision, whether to use the slightly more reliable and cheaper 3CCD camera or to try and scrape up enough to buy the newer untested HD camera.

    So I was wondering if anyone here had any experience using either type of camera and whether you had any advice.

  • Gorbash

    Gorbash FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #3182886 - 13 years ago

    From everything I've read, HD cameras are increadibly expensive, and the 3 ccd cameras are increadible.

  • Zimmy

    Zimmy

    #3183678 - 13 years ago

    The HD camera we were looking at was the new Canon XL H1 (I may be mistaken on the serial number) which is 6 grand Australian more expensive than the XL2 that we were looking at prior to the release of this new camera.

    So with that big a price gap you'd hope there was something pretty special there to warrant the cost increase, it isn't like the XL2 is a cheap camera.

  • RaginAsian

    RaginAsian

    #3184669 - 13 years ago

    I have an XL2. It's wonderful.

    But obviously, the HD's going to be better looking because..... well.... it's HD! Too bad that extra oomph costs $4K more. With that extra money, you could get some boom mics, lenses, and extras of that nature. If your budget's limited (mine is) and you don't have the additional components for filming, I'd definitely go with the XL2. The picture will look just fine.

  • Zander

    Zander

    #3187254 - 13 years ago

    3CCD SD Cam's generally have a very good image quality. HD Cam's also have 3CCDS and provide an outstanding visual since they have so many more pixels.

    When it comes to buying a camera you need to lay down your needs and your wants. For example. Needs: 24P, XLR inputs, easy to use manual focus, etc. Wants: Pretty image, large lcd screen, attractive casing, etc. So you need to figure out what is important to you and what price range you are looking at. Also, with HD you are going to NEED a system that can handle it. It has to have a high end graphics card, lotsa ram, good drives, and a dual processor or dual core (that's highend also). Almost forgot. You also need a huge harddrive/s, at least 500gb. The HDV setup uses a lot of space. If I remember correctly it's 13mbps.

  • kentnichols

    kentnichols

    #3188081 - 13 years ago

    Well, not all HD is created equal. The Sony, JVC, and Canon HDV cameras all use a heavily compressed signal. The Panasonic uses a more industrial grade compression.

    Each camera has major pluses and minuses. Do the research and don't believe the marketing hype.

    Canon HD1 (good things): Changeable lens, digital uncompressed out via HDSDI, pseudo 24p
    (bad things): non-standard HDV, which means you can only play the tapes back in the camera, pseudo 24p

    Sony (Good): strong history of quality, nifty features
    (bad) no 24p, analog HD out, fixed lens

    JVC (good): True 24p, changeable lens, pro featureset
    (Bad) crappy standard lens, analog HD out

    Panasonic (good): professional grade compression, 1080P, variable frame rates (for slow motion or faast motion), history of quality
    (bad): fixed lens, weird new method of tapeless acquisition (which is really cool, just very different from what we're used to)

    HDV and DV take up the same amount of space on your harddrives, 13.5 gigs per hour at 25 Mb/sec. The Panasonic HVX takes up two to four times as much space depending on the setting.

    The SD cameras are all a good lot too, but I'm biased towards the Panasonics -- especially if you're not got to use a different lens.

  • Bryy

    Bryy

    #3188348 - 13 years ago

    The new, uberexpesive Panasonic looks nice. Real nice.

  • kentnichols

    kentnichols

    #3188655 - 13 years ago

    In reply to Bryy, #7:

    Uberexpensive is relative. All of those HD cams are in the $5-10K range. Whereas before the cheapest HD cams were $60-120K.

  • Zander

    Zander

    #3189142 - 13 years ago

    In reply to Bryy, #7:

    Are you referring to the VariCam or the HVX200? Either way they are kickass camera's and I wish so have sex with them. Or just own one. Lol

  • Bryy

    Bryy

    #3189556 - 13 years ago

    HVX. But I may just splurge in June and get a Sony HD because the Panasonic is way out of my budget.

  • Zander

    Zander

    #3190170 - 13 years ago

    I'd wait for the HVX.

  • Kaisonic

    Kaisonic FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #3193700 - 13 years ago

    I haven't heard anything about anything anyone has mentioned in this thread. I really need to update myself on this kind of thing. smiley4.gif

  • Zimmy

    Zimmy

    #3201167 - 13 years ago

    In reply to kentnichols, #6:

    Though what would I be losing if I decided to go a step down and use the 3CCD versions of those cameras?

  • kentnichols

    kentnichols

    #3205051 - 13 years ago

    In reply to Zimmy, #13:

    3ccd is a rather inaccurate term. Most cameras above $1000 are three ccd.

    You need to look at what you're trying to do. Rent Havoc and In America. Look at how well the DV footage cuts in with the 35mm stuff.

    So if your goal is to create something that looks good on DVD or the web, a DVX100 is probably going to suit your needs just fine. If you want to push farther than that, go with an HD camera.

    I'm not a big fan of spending money you don't have on a camera. If you can't earn your money back from a camera in two or three years you're spending too much money and should rent it.

    If I were starting out right now, I'd look at the lower end Panasonic 3 CCD MiniDVs. You get pretty decent picture quality for well under $1000. And you get an external mic jack. Those are the two things that will improve your production values more than anything. My next choice is the DVX100.

    The differences between DV and HD, again are different depending on which flavor of HD you're talking about. With all flavors of HD you're dealing with a higher resolution image and with the HVX much more color information and much less compression.

  • Zimmy

    Zimmy

    #3205377 - 13 years ago

    Well at the moment we're looking at something like the Canon XL2/XM2 or something around a similar price range, we could probably pay off those cameras quickly enough.

    We were also considering whether or not it would be worthwhile trying to get a little more money together for one of the HD cameras.

    Our goal is basically to get something that will look as polished as we can within our limitations.

  • kentnichols

    kentnichols

    #3207271 - 13 years ago

    You're much better served on lighting and other production values those will show up more than which camera you used.

  • RaginAsian

    RaginAsian

    #3209643 - 13 years ago

    The price of an XL2/DVX100, lighting, sound equipment, etc. is ultimately going to cost less than any HD camera you can choose. Unless you have all of the other necessities, I'd skip trying to do HD, especially if your past experience with filming and such is limited.

  • Zimmy

    Zimmy

    #3210007 - 13 years ago

    Not so much limited as non existant smiley6.gif

    Thanks alot for the advice guys.