So let's clarify some things, the question is: what/which cam should you rent?

Well, what's your budget on the rental cam alone?
(and did ya factor in all other costs?)

You might want to ask yourself if your project justifies/requires HDV in the first place. Is this a fun family home movie thing? a web video project.... or film/serious project you'll be selling/submitting justifying a need for HDV, etc.

>>> Kinda like going to a Premiere site and asking questions about whether Vegas is any good.
<<<

With all due respect...
That is wrong. It depends on WHO you're talking to. If you speak with the monkeys you should know the language. But who likes to talk "monkey"?

*and it isn't biased toward pana, not sure where that came from. You read this in a thread there?

The earth is triangle shaped. There, I just said it and you just read it here....

Now, is the earth REALLY triangle shaped?
(btw: the answer is "NO").

and it isn't biased toward pana, not sure where the hell that came from. You read this in a thread there?

Uhhh....Jaydeeee....the DVXUser site is a site DEDICATED to Panasonic camcorders, they're heavily supported by Panasonic, and if you believe otherwise, I've got a great big beautiful bridge to sell you. Their people are all great guys, but they are a Panasonic-dedicated site, just as their name implies.
But...whatever.
Given that we own/rent/use all of the lower cost HD camcorders, I'd submit I have a pretty good grip on all of them, but I don't think I can help you, apparently.

>>Their people are all great guys, but they are a Panasonic-dedicated site<<

Hehe, I know abou the site, but I'm talking about the people themselves and their help offered to questions asked (not the general site focus).

I've never been fed "pana-only" food with those in the know over there when asking questions such as the original poster.
We've discussed the pros of vegas as well as many others, cams, filmng tips with all types cams/models, ad-nauseum.

I should have made that clear though, my fault. i got lazy in reply.

If you demand 24P, consider the FX1 is 60i. Z1 at 25 is a much better conversion, I understand.

I can tell you the FX1 image is stunning. Even shots in a cave.

Edited: corrected dumb 60p reference to 60i :)

60p? Typo - I think you meant 60i.

60i, yes. Duh.

I wish.

Jaydee - "You might want to ask yourself if your project justifies/requires HDV in the first place. Is this a fun family home movie thing? a web video project.... or film/serious project you'll be selling/submitting justifying a need for HDV, etc. "

Justifies a need for HDV - that is what I'm seeking to answer. From the tone of your question, I get the idea that you are saying that if it's a serious project, then HDV is required/justified? My target for this is, like I mentioned, film festivals - so I guess you could say that it's a serious project. What I have been trying to find the answer to is: what would HDV buy me that SD won't, given my budget constraints; what would I sacrifice if I went the SD way and how much it would matter (in terms of potential sellability, acceptance etc - all other things being equal), given that my target audience is what it is.

Thanks!

>>HDV buy me that SD won't, given my budget constraints; what would I sacrifice if I went the SD way and how much it would matter (in terms of potential sellability, acceptance etc - all other things being equal), given that my target audience is what it is.
<<

Ok man, I hear ya... and this is exactly why I asked the questions.
T o better help you it will probably require you telling about the project details (hate to say that, in case you don't want to divuldge this info).

What about this project dictates a NEED for HDV essentially?
I bet you'll find yourself realizing (as always) it still all boils down to the STORY and HOW it's told (rather than being able to count the hairs on the butterlies wings in imagery).

That said, go back and look at past successful film submissions/winners.
Did HDV play a role in it's success? (most cases - prob not, right?).

guess from the peanut gallery (not knowing you project or goal)?
You'll be fine without HDV.

If you're doing a feature film, camera rental is not the biggest part of your budget, not by a long shot. Do you have a fixed budget? If so, total up what you'll need for:
1. Good microphones and a sound recordist who knows what they're doing
2. Good lighting and tripod equipment and a D.P. who knows what they're doing
3. A good script and actors who know what they are doing
4. Food for the actors and crew during the shoot
5. Travel costs, rentals or shooting permits you need for any location shooting
6. Any music rights or original music you'll need for the piece

If you are going to substitute yourself for any of the "expert" crew, budget in the time and money it will take you to get up to speed and learn the craft.

Take whatever money you have left and THEN, AND ONLY THEN make the decision about whether you can afford to shoot in HD. Believe me, well-shot, well-lit and well-edited DV with good audio, good acting and a good story beat shoddy HDV every single time. There's still plenty of festival venues out there that are happy to accept DV, or hell, even VHS, if it looks and sounds good.

>>>If you're doing a feature film, camera rental is not the biggest part of your budget, not by a long shot.<<<

yep, yep, yep

I can only speak for down here but cost of renting a Z1 is only a few dollars more per day than say a PD170 or DVX100.
Apart from anything else the Z1 gives you balanced audio in and true 16:9. Plus for a filmic look the Z1 gives you automated rack focus that's fairly goof proof, something that I think no other camera has and is pretty handy if you don't have the follow focus gear and a good focus puller.

Ignore all the dross about story. Either your story's good or it suck, doesn't matter what you shoot it on. But a good story can be ruined by a poor image and / or poor sound. Sure if you've got a killer plot and killer talent anything will do but if YOU think your stories worth the telling why not make it look as good as possible. Conversely if you think your stories sucks don't bother shooting it, with an attiitude like that it's doomed before the first cry of "action".

Sorry but I'm kind of over this 'story' thing. We're talking about making a "movie" not putting in an entry for a Brooker prize. A good story only needs pencil and paper to be born. To take that story and turn it into moving images involves a lot of skill and technology, that's what making a movie is about, knowing how to turn a story into moving images, it is NOT about writing a good story.

Bob.

My .0000002 -

"My intended audience for this production is film festivals."

I say work backwards, if there is a chance of HD projection or film transfer for these festivals your HD work will really shine on the big screen. All things being equal you just can't beat the higher resolution.

Also, I hugely recommend going somewhere and doing some camera tests. Many local camera rental places are more than happy to let prospective film makers come down and check out the cameras. Try the cameras your looking at side by side, the rental prices are not all that far apart for the models your looking at. Really see which one will work for you - look at em' on a good monitor - poke and prod, tweak and fiddle.

Good luck!

kunal:
I don't know what your experience level is, but I would echo what Yoyodyne said. As I'm sure you're well aware, you certainly don't want to be fiddling with the owner's manual in the middle of a shoot. And each camera has its strengths which you can do well to become familiar with.

Shooting and editing with HDV has a non-trivial learning curve. Not a killer, but even so if you don't have the time to experiment and test, I'd suggest that you go with what you know.

>>>Sorry but I'm kind of over this 'story' thing.<<<

Ridiculous. That's really too bad to hear.
and all for what..."ego" here?

Those who care and know about story have the important (and most basic) tool in using: what, where,and how. Dean Cundy would have a field day on your ass.
A good story is NOT just paper and pencil either. Wow, so many things wrong with that bullsh*t tude.
and you're ..."over it" (shakes head).

You know what they call a musician/composer who is "over" caring about story?
Finished.

While you guys battle out the "story vs camera vs whatever" fight, I'd like to interject a WONDERFUL site for those of you heading toward the festival circuit.
It's www.withoutabox.com

Designed totally for the festival entrants, you sign up, fill out a myriad of forms, pictures, synopsis and crew facts - ONE TIME.
Then they send you weekly updates on whatever festivals you might be interested in, and automatically pre-qualify your film and enter it, where ever you may be interested.

Single click entry into dozens of festivals (BTW festival entries cost money)

Definitely bookmark that site if you are going the festival route.

Now.... back to the main show.

v

If you are making a film you should really have two cameras and the other stuff mentioned. Renting would seem prudent. In terms of HD, it seems unnecessary. "Open Water" (one of two picked up at the Sundance Film Festival) was shot with a couple of VX2000 cameras.

John

>>While you guys battle out the "story vs camera vs whatever"<<

Believe me, there is no "vs." on this one.

Nice site (just make sure you don't sign anything away).

I'm glad someone mentioned Open Water!

One of the few movies people mentioned the appalling image quality, I'd add my Wolf Creek to that list. Both good stories ruined.

My point isn't that the story isn't important, of course the story is important, it's where it all begins. I seem to recall saying if it sucks, no matter what you do from then on is doomed, hardly sounds to me like it's something unimportant. It is THE most important single thing.

BUT we're not in the business of making stories, we're in the business of TELLING stories. No doubt for many here those two roles are rolled into one, fine. But they're still two different beasts.

Roll the clock back to the days before we had any recording devices, not even a written language. One pretty common source of entertainment was the storyteller, no doubt there were good story tellers and bad story tellers and just then as today it all began with the story they had to tell. If they told a good story well, they got to eat. If the story was bad or they told it badly they went hungary.

The same goes for music, it all starts with a tune and ends with a performance. If those performing it can't play or the instruments are out of tune the best tune in the world will not save the day. That doesn't mean the tune was bad, it doesn't mean the tune isn't important but it also doesn't mean the skill of the musicians or the quality of their instruments doesn't matter.

So I'm not saying the story or the tune doesn't matter, rather it's something so fundamental I wonder why it keeps getting brought up.

But moving beyond that is where we should be at.

If what I'm saying is wrong then I've got to ask why did clients hire Victor Milt to tell their story and not the kid next door with his handycam? I suspect it's because they knew how good a job Victor does of telling their story. Maybe their story was a total flop, maybe nothing Victor could do would breath life into it but that's not Victors fault.

And of course it's not just about which camera. The best camera money can buy is going to look bad if the lighting is bad. The best microphone will not save talent who cannot speak. The best CGI will not save a bad plot.

See it's all a bit like a dance, everything has to come together to tell the story. Every part of the storytelling that isn't right detracts from the story, get enough of it wrong and the story is lost. That doesn't mean that every story has to be shot on 65mm, some stories can be told on way, way less than that and that's an equally vital part of our craft, knowing what tools the story needs to be told effectively.

So to go back to the very original question of 'what camera do I need?', it really depends on two things and oddly enough it starts with what your story is, if it's an epic or a narrative drama the choices are different. The next question is how is it going to be shown, on the small screen or the big screen.

Bob.

If you insist on *real* progressive scan mode (and you should for your application!) , forget Sony cams and older Canon XL (not shure about the newer XL2).

DVX100 / Vegas is a proven path for true, trouble free, 24 P workflow and the Pana provides IMHO outstanding images (just take a look at http://pinelakefilms.com/magicalfall.html).

Given the rage for HD, i think you should find a DVX100/16/9 adaptor combo for a reasonnable renting fee.

Why did they hire Vic Milt?
Because the man knows lighting, and he knows his craft. I'll bet Vic could produce a festival-quality projection image on almost any camera.

Please re-read my earlier post. I did not say "if you have a good story, you can get away with a really crappy image." However, what goes in to a good image is a hell of a lot more than just pixel resolution. Most standard-definition DV cameras are fully capable of producing an image that will look fine projected on a festival movie screen, IF the lighting is good, IF the shooting is good. Keep in mind, anything you project at anything other than Sundance is probably going to be from a Standard-Defiintion DVD anyway.

That said, it's probably true that the difference between renting a Z1 and a PD-150 these days is probably close to nil. The Z1 gives you 16X9, if you like that look.

Well of course what makes good story telling is way more than how many pixels the camera has. I'd go further than say what makes a good camera is more than how many pixels it has. Too many pixels can even work against it producing a good image, I've worked with footage from $80K DB cameras and $5K HDV cameras and do appreciate the latter point only too well. Which is not to say you cannot pull a startlingly good image from a $5K HDV camera, one that under the right conditions will look better than what you'll get from the DB cameras but you have to work harder at it.

I've also projected quite a bit of DV in cinemas to packed houses of 450, don't manage to fill cinemas to standing room only with most 35mm productions these days so I know well just how little pixel counts can count for.

But here's the really oddball thing and I have no technical explaination for this.
Some of what I've shown was straight from a TRV 900, good digital projector straight onto the silver screen. It looked just fine. Nothing more than a giant TV screen. The main feature was shot on 35mm and transfered to PAL DVCAM and it didn't fare as well as the native DV. But the real clincher seems to be that DV transferred to 35mm looks worse than if it's projected digitally as just DV.

Probably this is psychological. The transferred DV ends up looking like film and we expect film to be high res. Show it natively and we just go 'video' and accept it for what it is, we see it everyday so we're happy with what it is.

And of course Victor could make a festival grade movie on VHS. He wouldn't be the first either and that's not really where I'm coming from. I'd bet if his task was to shoot on VHS he'd carefully choose the story and he'd carefully craft the screenplay to suit the medium he'd have to work with. But a lot of cinematography doesn't work that way. The DOP is handed a done deal, a screeplay. It's then up to him to choose the medium, within a budget. A good DOP can well walk away from a project because he doesn't believe the story can be done justice within budgetary constraints.

Bob.