Advice for novice filmmaker - which camcorder and editing software to buy?

[NedZeppelin]

I am very much interested in making short movies and I was wondering what type of camcorder or particular models I should be going for? Should I be going for a proper movie camera or a handheld one? I don't really know where to start as I, admittedly, haven't ever owned a camcorder before. I am also aware of a few editing suites such as Adobe Premiere, Avid and Final Cut Pro (the latter which I have used before). Is one editing suite better than the other? Are Macs or PCs more suited to independent filmmaking? I would be grateful for any advice anyone could give me.

[A n d r e w]

You don't specify how much money you've got to spend, but my advice in any case would be to buy what you can afford. It doesn't matter what equipment you use - hardware and software are only tools - it's your ideas and skills (which you can develop with even the most budget equipment) that matter most.

Cheap camcorder, expensive camcorder, Mac, PC, etc., etc., thse are just details - just get yourself a cheap camcorder to get started with and see whether you actually like video or not. No one is going to see the equipment you shot your short with, or the editing suite you put it together with, when they watch your movie. What they'll want to see are a good story and strong visual ideas.

[NedZeppelin]

Thanks for replying. I didn't state a budget because I'm aware prices can vary greatly and am willing to get the right camcorder in terms of operation and versatility. I was just wondering if there are any advisable fundamental features and specifications for a camcorder that will be only used for filmmaking, such as whether it should be HDV, or hard disk, etc. Sorry, I'm just totally new to camcorders and just need a little nudge in the right direction. Having said that, I would probably have a budget of up to £1000 and would be willing to take a punt on a second hand model even.

[Mandark]

Well having just got into the camcorder life, I can offer some comments.

I took the decision that as I was getting my first camcorder and wanted a future proof HD one, I didn't really want to spend more than £500. My movies wouldn't be any better! I went with the Panasonic TM10 as it's a small consumer camera. People say the Canons offer the best picture quality but they didn't seem cheap to me. I ruled out Sony's because of their use of the memory stick duo. Tends to be pricier than SDHC. Although I have a PSP so am used to these sticks.

I also wanted to reserve some cash as I have an older PC system - one that uses a processor pre the dual core revolution. It's not up to effective HD video editing or conversion. Haven't upgraded yet but will do this year.

I know the creative industry has always been a big supporter of Macs and that's probably why you get decent photo and movie software as standard. But I think Windows based systems can offer more value. The savings you make over the Mac can get you a better processor.

I think for editing suites, try reading reviews on sites like Amazon. Some of them are very good and point out issues they had with the software. I imagine many go with Adobe Premiere Elements (like I have done) because it will give you a grounding for the professional Adobe products should you ever want to get more serious. But other software will have its fans.

Hope that helps.

[Mr Taylor]

Hi,
you sound like you are in the same situation as myself.
I also want to make short movies.

Over the past few months I have started to figure a few things out.

The main idea is that 35mm Film is one thing, and Video is another.
It is not easy to get video to look like film.
Video is an offshoot from television, (designed to be sent over the airwaves).
Film is an offshoot from photography, designed to be projected on to a wall.
They have converged sure, but each form carries it's history with it.

For example, with Video, interlacing creates annoying comb lines at the edges of moving objects.
This is a throwback to early television broadcasters, they miss out half the scan lines, in order to save data space.
And those annoying stepped edges or block shapes you get when you zoom into a video frame, they are created by complicated mathmatical codes, again designed to save space.

Dont even get me started about editing software.
It's a cowboy world out there at the moment.
Everyone is doing their own thing , trying to get the upper hand on the other guy. The poor old consumer gets to deal with the conflicts between computers , operating systems, compression-decompression codes and storage media.

When the revolution comes, marketing teams are going to be the first against the wall (joke).

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by Mr Taylor

Hi,
you sound like you are in the same situation as myself.
I also want to make short movies.

Over the past few months I have started to figure a few things out.

The main idea is that 35mm Film is one thing, and Video is another.
It is not easy to get video to look like film.
Video is an offshoot from television, (designed to be sent over the airwaves).
Film is an offshoot from photography, designed to be projected on to a wall.
They have converged sure, but each form carries it's history with it.

For example, with Video, interlacing creates annoying comb lines at the edges of moving objects.
This is a throwback to early television broadcasters, they miss out half the scan lines, in order to save data space.
And those annoying stepped edges or block shapes you get when you zoom into a video frame, they are created by complicated mathmatical codes, again designed to save space.

Dont even get me started about editing software.
It's a cowboy world out there at the moment.
Everyone is doing their own thing , trying to get the upper hand on the other guy. The poor old consumer gets to deal with the conflicts between computers , operating systems, compression-decompression codes and storage media.

When the revolution comes, marketing teams are going to be the first against the wall (joke).

You are way out in your opinion of video, believe me well filmed video can look vey good, i have a sony FX7 which is interlaced only and a Canon HV30 which does does interlaced and progressive. Some people like the progresive look on video i dont like it at all and my canon takes realy good interlaced video footage as does the Sony but i dont like the progressive video look it is jerky even using a tripod and in my opinion if YOU want your filming to look like film get yourself a film camera,i have seen many of my films projected and they look fine to me, you are exagerating the problems with interlaced video, i used 8mm film for a few years and have been using video filming 27 years now, anyway thats my take on it.

[WasBeen]

Can I make a radical suggestion..... Standard Def!

If you are REALY serious about making short films, go for a last generation semi-pro camera (Sony PD170, Panasonic DVX100B, Canon XL1, etc) but put up with the standard def until you can afford to upgrade.
These will give you usable manual controls, pro level inputs and outputs, better low light performance, better DoF control, audio control, sometimes even film like gamma and 24p if desired.
You should have mic in and headphone out as a minimum.

Also set aside money for microphone and tripod. Maybe even lighting if you plan indoor shooting.

Then any PC with firewire will be okay (saving money). Editing software, start cheap and upgrade if required. Look at any good budget film, and there will be no fancy effects or green screen. Colour processing may be useful, which is slightly higher end software.

Then you can develop your skills, and upgrade your equipment when you can afford it.

I looked for ages, then decided I WASN'T really serious and I bought a HDV Sony that has some useful connections for when I do want to make some effort.

Hope that helps a bit.

[Mr Taylor]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

You are way out in your opinion of video, believe me well filmed video can look vey good, if YOU want your filming to look like film get yourself a film camera, thats my take on it.

I agree. Video is amazing in it's own right.
It's the perfect tool to learn all the skills to make movies and to make very high quality products.
As you know, Film is very expensive and slow.
Film's main advantage is the massive 35mm silver salt sensor and that it has no scan, well it has insta scan if you think about it.

I'm realistic, I know you can't have your cake and eat it.

[Mr Taylor]

Originally Posted by WasBeen

Can I make a radical suggestion..... Standard Def!
If you are REALY serious about making short films, go for a last generation semi-pro camera Canon XL1, etc.
These will give you usable manual controls
Hope that helps a bit......

It's a good idea.
Even the XL2 is coming down in price.
If only they were not so huge.
How are you going to sneak one of those into a location you are not supposed to film in?

I know , I know, cake and eat it..

[ade4all]

Originally Posted by WasBeen

Can I make a radical suggestion..... Standard Def!

If you are REALY serious about making short films, go for a last generation semi-pro camera (Sony PD170, Panasonic DVX100B, Canon XL1, etc) but put up with the standard def until you can afford to upgrade.
These will give you usable manual controls, pro level inputs and outputs, better low light performance, better DoF control, audio control, sometimes even film like gamma and 24p if desired.
You should have mic in and headphone out as a minimum.

Also set aside money for microphone and tripod. Maybe even lighting if you plan indoor shooting.

Then any PC with firewire will be okay (saving money). Editing software, start cheap and upgrade if required. Look at any good budget film, and there will be no fancy effects or green screen. Colour processing may be useful, which is slightly higher end software.

Then you can develop your skills, and upgrade your equipment when you can afford it.

I looked for ages, then decided I WASN'T really serious and I bought a HDV Sony that has some useful connections for when I do want to make some effort.

Hope that helps a bit.

good points made, if £1000 is your maximum budget & you really want to learn how to use a camera with great manual co0ntrol something like the panasonic dvx100b would be about right - as mentioned you should also think about getting decent sound, something like the rode ntg1 microphone with shock mount - you should be able to get camera & mic 2nd hand for about your budget - a boompole would also be good, & tripod, another mic etc etc but this would be a great start

[Mr Taylor]

Originally Posted by ade4all

good points made.........panasonic dvx100b would be about right ..think about decent sound, ... rode ntg1 mic...

Yes, Never tried Panasonic...but after reading about how the company got started, I'm a lot more interested in their products.

I agree with your focus on sound.
Sound is maybe more than half of the entertainment of a story.

In fact, while editing, I usually end up with two video tracks and 12 audio tracks.

All of the smaller cameras I have tried have fantastic sound, but you do need the external Mic, as the inbuilt Mic will usually capture the sound of the camera motors as they focus.

[senu]

Originally Posted by Mr Taylor

Yes, Never tried Panasonic...but after reading about how the company got started, I'm a lot more interested in their products.

They make decent kit but then so do Canon Sony ect and even JVC
Brands which make Pro kit tend to invest in R and D and some of this filters down to thier more pocket friendly kit

Sound is maybe more than half of the entertainment of a story.

True , saying which external recording kit does have a role as ones aspirations get more

All of the smaller cameras I have tried have fantastic sound, but you do need the external Mic, as the inbuilt Mic will usually capture the sound of the camera motors as they focus.

Not invariably though.. only on very quiet scenes unless the camcorder is known for that or is faulty
A poor quality ext mic may be worse than a decent built in one

[chrishull3]

I have got to say using a mic like the rode stereo mic i use gives brilliant sound, using it with my FX7 which does not have auz inputs matters little as the sound is realy out of this world at times, birds singing in otherwise quiet surroundings etc great.


The rode video mic may me a tad more directional i have one and its not in the SMs class for overal sound,

[ade4all]

Originally Posted by senu

A poor quality ext mic may be worse than a decent built in one

true but a poor quality ext mic placed close to your subject will almost always sound better than the camera mic if you are filming from any kind of distance. If the op wants to make films with decent sound then an external mic off the camera will enable them to get in close, particularly if there is dialogue. A shotgun mic such as the rode will also be much more directional, meaning it will reject a lot of noise coming from behind it & pick up mainly sound from whatever it's pointed at. Camera mics are more omni directional & therefore harder to control & only really any use for ambient sound.

[senu]

Originally Posted by ade4all

true but a poor quality ext mic placed close to your subject will almost always sound better than the camera mic if you are filming from any kind of distance. If the op wants to make films with decent sound then an external mic off the camera will enable them to get in close, particularly if there is dialogue. A shotgun mic such as the rode will also be much more directional, meaning it will reject a lot of noise coming from behind it & pick up mainly sound from whatever it's pointed at. Camera mics are more omni directional & therefore harder to control & only really any use for ambient sound.

Im in agreement with you .
My point was to not aim too low when getting an external mic as some can degrade sound
Certainly being external ans as such closer to the subject is always a bonus but shoudnt be at the expense of sound quality
As it happens most of the suggestion so far have been for decent quality mics