Unfortunately, I can't do that without actually losing money. Here's why:

--- My only income is a U.S. Social Security disability income and the only reason I'm even in a position to consider a cam is a small inheritance. BUT... I am limited by the government to have only so much in cash assets. Why?

For every month I am over the limit, I have, they deduct about $300 from my monthly income or I have to pay it to them. Too complicated to get into,

Butt bottom line is that:

--- I have to "spend down" the total amount received within a month to not lose said benefits amount for following months ($300 or whatever would be over the limit).

This inheritance is that much, so a dent every month into it will erode it.

Other solution: Postpone reciept of inheritance, but that may or may not be possible due to estate parameters.

--------------------------

As far as ethics is concerned, many people hide stuff like this from the government and get away with it. First, I don't operate that way in my life. I'm not perfect, but I am principled.

Second, Social Security literally saved my life and keeps me and my film-making dreams alive. Call it G/grace, whatever.
Gratitude and dishonesty don't mix.

OK, nuf said, let's get back on topic :)
.

The really important core philosophy is that cameras don't make films/videos, people make them. Whether it's a phone video or a RED it's the person that makes the difference between a record and a movie. Understanding that, you go for the affordable gear that will help you make the movie and deliver a market-attractive product. Must this be HD? No. When you've searched this forum for answers to this question you'll have seen the range of opinions, and you'll have seen that the strong advice has been to go for HDV and in general I think that correct. But you'll also have read strong opinions the other way, arguing that most homes in the USA do not yet have HD sets, so SD still has a long life ahead of it. I've seen SD to 35mm film-out in the cinema that are fine when the story is involving. So I'd say look to the features you need in a camera, and if these are in an SD camera in your budget, go for it. Better than going for a very limited HDV camera. You'll see that Grazie, for one, is shooting SD on Canon GL2 and he sounds very happy; excellent camera, too.

Q-1:
Yes. It will also require more hard drive space.

Tempted to Get a Very Good Older 3-CCD, But Waffling

If you think at some point in the future you could buy a hdv camera that was decent in low light, I would go a head and buy a SD cam now as you would get better low light for your money. I have 2 hvr-a1u's and an hc1 and they are not the greatest in low light, but they do put out a great picture at 1080i. If this is your only chance to get a cam... well, that is a tough call. You can get great low light in SD for around your price point but not necessarily with HDV. You can always get creative with your lighting and get the HDV cam to "future proof" your offerings so to speak. If you do go the HDV route, I would strongly urge you to at least get Vegas 7 as it handles HDV much better in its naitive capture format.

j razz

Hi Serena,

Long time no chat here :) Wise posting. Now one thing I do have to comment on is this:

"But you'll also have read strong opinions the other way, arguing that most homes in the USA do not yet have HD sets, so SD still has a long life ahead of it."

True and false.

In February 2009 all TV broadcasts in the U.S. will go HD. Those how have non-HD sets will have to get converters. For those who cannot afford it, the government will issue vouchers to get 1-2 per household.

But since there still will be a large amount of people doing SD TV + converter, technically speaking, they (I among them) won't be seeing "true" HD.

One more issue to add to the pot, from both sides of the film-making kitchen :)
.

I might be wrong (and, if so, someone will correct me) but the FCC requirement is that all broadcasts will be digital (DTV) to replace analog. HDTV is a form of digital broadcast, but that is not the requirement for February 2009. The requirement is simply for digital. Therefore, people still will not need an HDTV.

Jrazz,

Again, some good points offered. And I'll respond to a few here.

"You can get great low light in SD for around your price point but not necessarily with HDV."

----- That's why I'm tempted. I just hate to lose the resolution for I'm a detail-obsessed type of dude :)



----- As discussed in another recent thread I started about getting an HD for around $1500 instead, the subject of good lighting came up, specifically with Farss. No pro here, but I've got good instincts that go back to desigh school over 30 years ago. .

"If you do go the HDV route, I would strongly urge you to at least get Vegas 7 as it handles HDV much better in its native capture format."

------ Oh, crap. That's two hundred dollars more that I was hoping not to have to spend - lol.

So that would cut into what I can pay for a cam. Will cross that bridge once I decide.
Which also depends one what shows up. I may find a sweet deal.

One is pending but not assured on a 99.9% new HDR-FX7 locally with wide angle lenses and other good accessories going for the MSRP of the cam alone. Not counting on it and won't know for a couple of days, but if it comes through, I'll probably snag it.

However....

I just want to keep my options open and rethink a few things, incl. format
Hence why I put up this question.
.

I well understand the obsession with resolution, which kept me in film for longer than it should. So my first video camera was HDV. There is a lot of overhead with HDV in terms of computer power and I've spent far more on that than on the original camera. If you also go down that path, have a look at Gearshift (which will let you keep using V6).

Yes the change to digital broadcasting requires a "set-top box" to convert the digital signal to analogue (for analogue sets). True that programming buyers are demanding HD, so you have to take that into account in assessing your market. Assuming you're looking at Indie, what are the chat rooms saying?

Thanks for reply -- and tip on VASST Gearshift. If I go HD, then $49 vs. $199 + shipping for Vegas 7 sounds like a reasonable solution.

As to indie chat rooms, even though I've been on the Net since when Google was still a new Stanford University project, I've never used chat rooms and only IM type stuff once or twice.. I don't like he pressure and like to take my time writing something in a somewhat clear fashion (my father was a journalist :)

As to your point on upgrading one's computer to handle HD better....

I hope I'll be OK with my dual core Pentium D and 4 Gb. DDRAM. I could spend up to $200 to upgrade the Pentium by about 15-20% more muscle, but not something on top of my list.

But fact is, even while rendering highly compressed files such as .wmv, my CPU meters never are maxed out together. One can be, but the other is only using about about 1/3 of its capacity.

Again, this isn't rendering or juggling HD files, but hopefully an indication that I may still have a good margin left CPU-wise.
.

For what you're doing I think what thhe FCC mandates doesn't matter one iota, first and foremost you're doing this for YOU, not for broadcast. Your interest is in the image so more pixels is a good thing, I mean I've never heard this argument dragged out when it comes to still cameras. Everyone would love to own a full frame DSC and the lenses to match if they could afford to.

As many have said of course compared to your skills at lighting the camera is a minor concern and I think your thinking is wrong about the low light issue.

Looking at what you're trying to shoot the words that come to mind are moody, dark and sensuous. That does not mean very little light, if you know what you're doing with light there'sno reason not to use 10Ks (melting talent aside) if that's what the camera needs. Thing is it's all relative, not absolute. It's the ratio between the darkest part of the frame and the brightest that creates the mood, it's how the light falls off into black, how much of the frame is black, how much detail is in the shadows, how the light wraps around the objects and the colors and more light gives better color rendition.

One recent shoot I read about the director insisted he wanted the look of fine grained 35mm stock. One night exterior of an abandoned service station they lit with around 100KW of light with 2Ks inside. The DoP nearly had a heart attack when he saw that amount of light but it seems it worked just fine, on the print it looked like a dark, moody abandoned building.

Bob.

In February 2009 all TV broadcasts in the U.S. will go HD. Those how have non-HD sets will have to get converters. For those who cannot afford it, the government will issue vouchers to get 1-2 per household. Your cablebox (or direct_tv), should still receive the same signal. If your on cable there shouldn't be anything to do on your end (except pay the bill), the cable supplier takes care of this.

Just as a small clarification; 1080 HDV occupies the same amount of space as DV, and 720 HDV actually occupies less space than DV. If you're using an intermediary, it's no longer HDV, but rather 4:2:2 lightly compressed footage, which uses approx 40GB per hour vs the 13GBper hour of 1080 HDV or DV.

1080 HDV occupies the same amount of space as DV

Yes, but the Cineform avi takes up way more hard drive space when doing multiple generation edits!

j razz

"In February 2009 all TV broadcasts in the U.S. will go HD."

Just a small clarification; in February 2009 all broadcast television in the US will shut down analog transmission and go exclusively digital, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will go HD. There are 18 different formats available to broadcasters, but most all will opt for 480i SD or 720p or 1080i HD.

John

Thanks for clarifications on that important date for us pixel-pushers :)

Farss/Bob's posting seems to bring all the elements of this dilemma together in terms of trying to get a balanced perspective, so I'll use it as a response template:

------------

For what you're doing I think what thhe FCC mandates doesn't matter one iota, first and foremost you're doing this for YOU, not for broadcast.

----- Very good point. Kind of like saying that just because the Beatles' music was recorded on 2-track back in the days that it can't be enjoyed in an mp3 player :)

Your interest is in the image so more pixels is a good thing, I mean I've never heard this argument dragged out when it comes to still cameras. Everyone would love to own a full frame DSC and the lenses to match if they could afford to

----- While kind of saying the opposite of the above, this pushes the dial toward going HD. If ya can get more pixels, get 'em. That said, hopefully my Pentium D/4 Gb DDRM system should suffice for that on the editing end.

Besides, the fact is that...

I'm already in part working in HD/larger-than-SD resolution:

----- The work I create using Celestia and NASA Worldwind for the beauty passes of the Earth and fly-overs of landscapes are made from Frap captured sequences using those apps. Not to mention Particleillusion PNG files and other still images used.

These are done at the highest resolution my monitors can handle (2560 x 960) for I more often than not need to to add action and dynamics through pan-crops.

All these large-scene sequences will be woven around whatever I will be shooting with said future camcorder.

So seems logical to get more pixels.

As many have said of course compared to your skills at lighting the camera is a minor concern and I think your thinking is wrong about the low light issue

----- As stated before, I'm no pro, but I've always been fascinated with light and lighting so I probably can pull off some decent workarounds to not having a 1 or 3 lux rated cam.

Ratings can also be, well, over-rated too.

The composite frames pic that opens this thread is way too small, compressed and muddy to show details, but it does show my obsession with light :)

Looking at what you're trying to shoot the words that come to mind are moody, dark and sensuous. That does not mean very little light, if you know what you're doing with light there's no reason not to use 10Ks (melting talent aside) if that's what the camera needs. Thing is it's all relative, not absolute. It's the ratio between the darkest part of the frame and the brightest that creates the mood, it's how the light falls off into black, how much of the frame is black, how much detail is in the shadows, how the light wraps around the objects and the colors and more light gives better color rendition.

----- Well put. I haven't inhaled a more concise description since my days in design school back in the mid 70s. This stuff goes back to the Renaissance/chiaroscuro and still applies.

(I also used to, uh, inhale other things back in those days that cost a mere $10-20 an ounce per sandwich baggie. But that's for another topic - lol)

One recent shoot I read about the director insisted he wanted the look of fine grained 35mm stock. One night exterior of an abandoned service station they lit with around 100KW of light with 2Ks inside. The DoP nearly had a heart attack when he saw that amount of light but it seems it worked just fine, on the print it looked like a dark, moody abandoned building

----- Being still a bit green about certain film-making terms, I'm guessing your use of "K" refers to kilowatts, ergo lighting power.

That is a good example of above statement of "...first and foremost you're doing this for YOU, not for broadcast" and using whatever skills one has to paint good and fulfilling visual canvases, not getting lost in paint-by-number rules of creating one's work.

Kind of like religion and philosophy, and life itself: certain principles and guidelines can be very beneficial, but dogma kills the show. And the heart of the artist.

After all, film-making is an art, be it stylistically dramatic as in my case, or be it preserving a wedding memory or hi-tech corporate presentation.

So to make summary through an analogy with my past days as a semi-fine artist:

----- it wasn't the brand name or price tag of my tubes of paint that made or broke the expression and fulfillment of what I created. It was the joy and passion of creating the work to look luminous that mattered most.
____________________

Nuf waxing philosophic-poetic.

I'm not yet completely decided, but I do feel myself leaning more towards HD. At least today. I don't have to buy anything right this minute, Easy does it.
.

So to add to my last posting above just after Farss's, here is the cam I have my heart set on. Current MSRP is USD $2450 at B&H, but if lucky, I'll be able to get one barely used for &2000.

Or get nice extras such as wide-angle, XLR audio adapter, Spider brace, big batteries thrown in for the B&H price.

No, it's not the best Sony mid-range or the better but far pricier Canon in this category, but it's not bad either. CamcorderInfo.com says low-light sucks, Other reviews say it's fair to decent. I think we've covered the lighting subject.

Let me know what you think of this puppy -- keeping in mind what has been stated in the above discussions.



The basic HDR-FX7 Spec Sheet is included below:

-- I had to put it on my own server for using a direct link to the Sony site forces you to have to search for the model number. Odd.

The MSRP there is the original 2006 one upon release..
Current B&H price is USD $1300 lower.

HDR-FX7 Basic Specs
.

Soniclight -

My vote goes to the HDV camera - I have the Z1 and believe (and might be very wrong here - gang??) that the "basics" of sensor and lens are more or less the same as the FX1.

If so, low light is not an issue, merely a limiting condition to overcome creatively. One solution that I demonstrate and use all the time, is the use of slower shutter speeds 1/30th, 1/15th and often even slower.

Another of course is a boost in gain. Where I rarely needed a boost with my PD170, the truth is that a 6db or even 12db boost with my Z1 is pretty much un-noticeable.

Re storage space - a Spot has pointed out - it's the same as DV, so that is not an issue.

And as for a faster computer and Vegas 7 (soon to be 8) - well, I suggest using the VASST GearShift for your editing purposes until you have the money to continue your upgrading. That is a proxy program that works very well with all the "older" equipment and Vegas 5 or 6.

That way you will be able to acquire in HDV, "future-proofing" your movie for quite some time, and still edit with your existing setup.

Based on your background art, you may be doing a lot of greenscreen work. HDV will definitely "Key out" better than SD, although you may have to wait until you upgrade your edit gear for really good keys. But you can definitely work on the storyline with total abandon.

Above all, as Bob has pointed out... in the end, it is Concept that is the King.

Good luck with your project.

best,
v

"----- Would getting a really good SD cam be a tactical mistake? Otherwise put, part of me says......."Do I really, really need HD or am I just wanting it? :) "

Wants or needs.... go first with what you truly need.
Are you doing videos to support your family?

If not, then RENT for special occasions, you will get a chance to tryout before
buying later.

If you are doing it for money and decide to go SD for now I would get a camera
that does 16:9 so it looks OK on new TV sets.

Prioritize your needs.

Mine went something like this:

Used stable tripod with fluid head - (Sachtler)
Shotgun microphone and XLR adapter (Beachtek) to get good sound.
Basic Lowel light kit. (two lights with some bounce cards)
3D software (Caligari Truespace)
3CCD camera (Sony PD170)
Added a used Miller tripod for rented camera (Sachtler model too light duty)
Mattebox for outdoor shots.
Scrim for indoor shots with office window background.

Scattered DIY projects to save money and misc small items (cables, filters, stands, etc)

Future HD camera with tapeless storage to improve workflow. (XDCAM EX ???)

Vicmit,

Hey, thanks for thoughtful reply. Things shifted over the weekend moneywise -- there is no rush in when this small inheritance is to officially be popped into my bank, so I decided to.... take a breath and slow down. I don't need a camcorder right this minute, o I might as well take my time.

Also, manufacturers can tend to roll out new products during the last few months before Christmas, older model prices can also tend to drop a bit. So might as well just relax and see what shows up.

So I decided not to get that FX7 deal either. As to its specs compared to the FX1, there are some differences, not earth-chattering, but one important one is 3 1/4" sensors versus 3 1/3" in the FX1. If I'm going to shell out good money, might as well accept no less than 1/3". Color is very important to me :)

Therefore the immediacy of this thread has vanished but I've learned alot in the process of the seeming pressure of havng to decide very soon.

Onward and upward. In a more chill fashion :)