FlyerTalk Forums - Video camera recommendation?

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Travel Technology (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology-169/)

- - Video camera recommendation? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/621122-video-camera-recommendation.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTravel (Post 7601225)

Sony makes some excellent HDV machines that produce spectacular images with virtually no motion artifacts.

PTravel,

To which machines are you referring? (BTW, thanks for sharing your experience with us on this and what I hope will be the new Photography/Video forum!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwebslinger (Post 7605127)

PTravel,

Good stuff. ^ ^ ^ I have been doing lots of research myself and my friends are in the media business. They basically say the samething as you have been saying.

I'm looking for a jib to do stuff in a auditorium seating of 1000. Any recommendations?

I've seen low-cost and lightweight jibs but, because they're not likely to be used in my travel videography (;)), I haven't paid close attention. Sorry, but I can't make any recommendations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somewhere Over the Atlantic (Post 7605455)

PTravel,

To which machines are you referring? (BTW, thanks for sharing your experience with us on this and what I hope will be the new Photography/Video forum!)

The machines I'm considering are the Sony FX1 and FX7. One is CMOS the other CCD. They're both 3-sensor machines in a form factor not too different from the standard definition VX2000 that I'm using now. They both use the full 25 mbps bandwidth of HDV, so motion artifacts, though present, are considerably fewer than with the ACVHD machines that limit bandwidth to 12-17 mbps. HDV is also supported by Premiere Pro and a lot of other good editing packages (I use Premiere Pro, so it should be easy to make the switch). I would still need to find a good transcoder that can handle HDV source (I don't think tmpgenc can transcode to an HD-compatible mpeg2 stream, though it can accept HDV as an input). Encore will author BluRay, and there are consumer BluRay drives starting to come on the market, so it's not too long until editing and burning high-def DVDs will become economically feasible for amateurs like me. The biggest obstacle is convincing my wife that I need this stuff. ;)

Mmmm...Red One...Mmmmmm

Thanks again for your help and suggestions. The website you mentioned had a ton of useful information. I decided to go with the HV20. I haven't done much with it yet, but so far, I'm pretty happy with it.

Camcorder Sony HDR SR 7 AVCHD and other concerns

I have done some research on camcorders and am leaning towards buying the Sony HDR SR 7. Based on my specifications which are:

Extremely Simple transfer/copy/editing from camcorder to DVD/PC
Light weight
High video quality
high quality - Low light shooting
Auto settings (not interested in manual settings)
Simplicity in use
Price range $1000-1500 acceptable

As per my research I found that AVCHD of Sony models is not compatible with any video editing software. I looked at the Canon HV 20 and HV 10 models are some other acceptable alternatives for me.

Any advice on which one I should buy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyerGoldII (Post 7876842)

Ulead Video Studio 11 Plus is compatible with AVCHD

http://www.ulead.com/vs/runme.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyerGoldII (Post 7876842)

You might want to consider this:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm

Quote:

Video Performance
The HDR-SR7 is equipped with a 1/3” ClearVid CMOS sensor. Sony is offering three distinct imagers in its $1000+ consumer models this year - a 1/3" CMOS with a 2100K gross pixel count, a 1/3" CMOS with a 3200K gross pixel count, and a 1/2.9" CMOS with a 3200K gross pixel count. The SR7's imager is the middle one (1/3" and 3200K) with an effective pixel count of 2280K. This is similar in pixel count to the imager found in the HDR-HC7, Sony’s HDV warrior we tested earlier this year, but the size is a touch smaller. In bright light conditions, we don't expect to see much of a difference. The HC7 performed well in bright light (3000 lux), with an image that was rich in color and rife with sharp lines. Sony’s two previous AVCHD models, the HDR-SR1 and UX1 offered less color and more noise—a characteristic that will most likely translate to the SR7’s image. We’d expect the SR7 to handle color well but suffer the slings and arrows of AVCHD’s motion trailing and increased noise levels. The SR1 and UX1 both had noise issues, but that’s a characteristic of the AVCHD format. Even the Panasonic HDC-SD1(Review, Specs, Recent news, $1119.99) had trouble with noise and motion artifacting, despite its three 1/4" CCDs. AVCHD is more efficient than HDV, but the current maximum bitrate of 15Mbps is furiously roosting its tires in the mud, attempting to barrel out and reach that coveted 24Mbps plateau we’ve been waiting for.

Low Light Performance
Sony reports that the HDR-SR7’s minimum lowlight sensitivity can reach 2 lux, but you should expect a farm of noise. We shot some footage inside a dimly lit night club with the HDR-CX7(Review, Specs, Recent news, $1199.00) and then connected it via HDMI to a widescreen monitor. The picture was pelted with noise and motion artifacts. Graininess ran rampant. We experienced a similar situation with the HC7, however, the HDR-HC3(Review, Specs, $969.99) did not cause such a commotion. The reason is because Sony pumped up the gross pixel count of last year’s HC3 from 2100K to 3200K. Yes, you can expect more definition, but the sensitivity typically decreases due to the smaller pixels. The downward trend between the HC3’s low light performance and HC7’s lead us to believe that the SR7 will perform worst of all - combining the small pixel size with a smaller chip, plus the noise and motion issues inherent thus far in the AVCHD format.

Note, too, that camcorderinfo.com tends to be a bit of a cheerleader for new gear. AVCHD is a deliberately-limited format intended to provide "something new" for consumers, without providing the quality of HD. AVCHD is certainly capable of high-quality video, but not when its bandwidth is artificially limited as in Sony's consumer implementations.

update video recommendations

My son is looking for a new video camera. I'm not sure what his price range is. He has a Sony he hates. It records in MPEG-2 format which he finds difficult to edit. So, he is looking for a video camera which records a format that is easily editable. He does a lot of underwater shooting. Ikelite which I have been pushing on him for a housing rather than the cheap housing he has makes housings for Sony, Canon and JVC, but that's not a limiting factor.

Anyone have some recommendations. He doesn't want a minature camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manneca (Post 10900133)

Canon HV30. Hands down, the best video image of any amateur camcorder AND it's HDV, i.e. high definition. Note that all HDV camcorders record using a temporally-compressed codec, either MPEG2, MPEG4 or AVCHD. These are easily editable, but you need the right editing software and a reasonably-powerful computer.

:)

Just got a HV30 home as well. Every review says it has the best video quality.

Even better, for everyday use, it just works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willyroo (Post 10900273)

:)

Just got a HV30 home as well. Every review says it has the best video quality.

Even better, for everyday use, it just works.

I've got an HV20, the HV30 predecessor, but electronically and optically identical. It's quite the amazing machine -- it doesn't have the low-light capability of my old VX2000, but it's not bad for such a small camera and the images are absolutely stunning! Light-weight, low-cost, lots of manual controls -- what's not to like?