What's the difference in picture quality between 3 camcord..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

What's the difference in picture quality between 3 camcorders from
1200 to 3500 Euros?

I intend shooting my first documentary this summer and I'm in the
process of selecting a camera. I'm feeling bullish, so I want a
camera that will give me best quality, so that I have the most options
when it comes to finding an audience for the finished product.
I have an initial shortlist of 3 cameras at 3 price points, although
other cameras might be added later. The 3 are as follows, with prices
in Euros:

Canon MVX3i 1200
Canon XM2 2300
Canon XL1S 3500

As a first time film maker, I'm wondering whether the XL1S might be
too technically demanding? I'm assuming that the MVX3i would be more
user friendly for a novice.

My bottom line question is this. Will the XM2 and XL1S, if used
correctly, provide a finished product that will be of broadcast
quality, whereas the MVX3i will not be up to this task?
I'm assuming that the XM2 is capable of producing footage good enough
for commercial DVD release. Is the XL1S capable of producing
cinematic release grade footage? Or can this be achieved with both
the higher end Canons?

Any help appreciated.

Love

Crow

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow wrote:

> What's the difference in picture quality between 3 camcorders from
> 1200 to 3500 Euros?
>
> I intend shooting my first documentary this summer and I'm in the
> process of selecting a camera. I'm feeling bullish, so I want a
> camera that will give me best quality, so that I have the most options
> when it comes to finding an audience for the finished product.
> I have an initial shortlist of 3 cameras at 3 price points, although
> other cameras might be added later. The 3 are as follows, with prices
> in Euros:
>
> Canon MVX3i 1200
> Canon XM2 2300
> Canon XL1S 3500
>
> As a first time film maker, I'm wondering whether the XL1S might be
> too technically demanding? I'm assuming that the MVX3i would be more
> user friendly for a novice.
>
> My bottom line question is this. Will the XM2 and XL1S, if used
> correctly, provide a finished product that will be of broadcast
> quality, whereas the MVX3i will not be up to this task?
> I'm assuming that the XM2 is capable of producing footage good enough
> for commercial DVD release. Is the XL1S capable of producing
> cinematic release grade footage? Or can this be achieved with both
> the higher end Canons?
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
> Love
>
> Crow


I think all three-chip cameras are basically the same. Also, you'll be
able to figure everything out in a week.

marvel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi Crow -
I faced a similar decision myself 6 mths ago, without much technical
background. I opted for the Canon MVX3i and have been pretty happy
with it. I particularly like the portability and price for the quality
of image. You can also do a lot with the money left over to contribute
to other aspects of production!

> > As a first time film maker, I'm wondering whether the XL1S might be
> > too technically demanding? I'm assuming that the MVX3i would be more
> > user friendly for a novice.

I agree with the previous comment - you'll learn how to use whatever
you've got pretty quickly.

> > My bottom line question is this. Will the XM2 and XL1S, if used
> > correctly, provide a finished product that will be of broadcast
> > quality, whereas the MVX3i will not be up to this task?

No black and white sorry. Depends on the expectations of the
brodcaster (who your target audience is), and how much range you want
out of the camera. My understanding is that in Australia 3i is
sufficient for our independant broadcaster, but not our commercial
ones. This assumes you aren't doing too much that's technically
demanding for the camera, like low light and lots of hand held action
(for eg I do mostly interview based stuff, which is easy to light
well). In the end the advice I was given was that the question of
technical aesthetics was considered to be secondary to the content of
the doco, but this was a broadcaster based policy. If you want to
compete with commercial producers, you need the high end.

As for the 3 chip question - not all 3 chips are equal. There are
other variables in what boosts picture quality aside from the number
of chips. When I bought the 3i, I was advised it was better than
low-end 3 chips because of the technology Cannon use to scan an image.
Instead of 3 chips scanning for a colour each, or a regular 1 chip
scanning once for all three colours, the 3i scans 3 times, once for
each colour. In theory this gives better colour saturation and image
quality, though no one claims it is as good as higher end 3.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 9 Jun 2004 21:23:26 -0700, s.fry@onthe.net.au (Snooz) wrote:

>Hi Crow -
>I faced a similar decision myself 6 mths ago, without much technical
>background. I opted for the Canon MVX3i and have been pretty happy
>with it. I particularly like the portability and price for the quality
>of image. You can also do a lot with the money left over to contribute
>to other aspects of production!

Thanks for the input. The portability of the MVX3i is very appealing
to me, as well as the price. Are there things about the Canon that
you aren't so happy with?

>> > As a first time film maker, I'm wondering whether the XL1S might be
>> > too technically demanding? I'm assuming that the MVX3i would be more
>> > user friendly for a novice.
>
>I agree with the previous comment - you'll learn how to use whatever
>you've got pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, as the sentence seems to
contradict itself!

>> > My bottom line question is this. Will the XM2 and XL1S, if used
>> > correctly, provide a finished product that will be of broadcast
>> > quality, whereas the MVX3i will not be up to this task?
>
>No black and white sorry. Depends on the expectations of the
>brodcaster (who your target audience is), and how much range you want
>out of the camera. My understanding is that in Australia 3i is
>sufficient for our independant broadcaster, but not our commercial
>ones. This assumes you aren't doing too much that's technically
>demanding for the camera, like low light and lots of hand held action
>(for eg I do mostly interview based stuff, which is easy to light
>well). In the end the advice I was given was that the question of
>technical aesthetics was considered to be secondary to the content of
>the doco, but this was a broadcaster based policy. If you want to
>compete with commercial producers, you need the high end.

I'm slowly beginning to accept that this is a grey area. I sure wish
it wasn't, but hey, it is what it is. I got accommodation in
Amsterdam yesterday, so once I've moved in over the weekend, I'll have
better access to getting my hands on cameras and making a decision.

>As for the 3 chip question - not all 3 chips are equal. There are
>other variables in what boosts picture quality aside from the number
>of chips. When I bought the 3i, I was advised it was better than
>low-end 3 chips because of the technology Cannon use to scan an image.
>Instead of 3 chips scanning for a colour each, or a regular 1 chip
>scanning once for all three colours, the 3i scans 3 times, once for
>each colour. In theory this gives better colour saturation and image
>quality, though no one claims it is as good as higher end 3.

I've learnt from experiences in other fields that the raw
specifications don't nearly tell you the whole picture.
It's an exciting project for me, but there's so much to learn that I
find it overwhelming at times. I'm really grateful for all the help
that I've received via these newsgroups. It's made a big difference.

Love

Crow

 

[Someone]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Just an aside about the camera choice.

The image is only part of the whole package. The usability of the camera
and especially the accommodations for audio are just if not more important.
The ability to handle pro-audio accessories without XLR adapters, an ability
to quickly control the camera (sometimes just Control the camera) are all
very important.

I also think it is very important to spend some time with the cameras in
question.


"Crow" <crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2l4hc0pl24ii25c3ol5c1nt83ofa0nee3c@4ax.com...
> On 9 Jun 2004 21:23:26 -0700, s.fry@onthe.net.au (Snooz) wrote:
>
> >Hi Crow -
> >I faced a similar decision myself 6 mths ago, without much technical
> >background. I opted for the Canon MVX3i and have been pretty happy
> >with it. I particularly like the portability and price for the quality
> >of image. You can also do a lot with the money left over to contribute
> >to other aspects of production!
>
> Thanks for the input. The portability of the MVX3i is very appealing
> to me, as well as the price. Are there things about the Canon that
> you aren't so happy with?
>
> >> > As a first time film maker, I'm wondering whether the XL1S might be
> >> > too technically demanding? I'm assuming that the MVX3i would be more
> >> > user friendly for a novice.
> >
> >I agree with the previous comment - you'll learn how to use whatever
> >you've got pretty quickly.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here, as the sentence seems to
> contradict itself!
>
> >> > My bottom line question is this. Will the XM2 and XL1S, if used
> >> > correctly, provide a finished product that will be of broadcast
> >> > quality, whereas the MVX3i will not be up to this task?
> >
> >No black and white sorry. Depends on the expectations of the
> >brodcaster (who your target audience is), and how much range you want
> >out of the camera. My understanding is that in Australia 3i is
> >sufficient for our independant broadcaster, but not our commercial
> >ones. This assumes you aren't doing too much that's technically
> >demanding for the camera, like low light and lots of hand held action
> >(for eg I do mostly interview based stuff, which is easy to light
> >well). In the end the advice I was given was that the question of
> >technical aesthetics was considered to be secondary to the content of
> >the doco, but this was a broadcaster based policy. If you want to
> >compete with commercial producers, you need the high end.
>
> I'm slowly beginning to accept that this is a grey area. I sure wish
> it wasn't, but hey, it is what it is. I got accommodation in
> Amsterdam yesterday, so once I've moved in over the weekend, I'll have
> better access to getting my hands on cameras and making a decision.
>
> >As for the 3 chip question - not all 3 chips are equal. There are
> >other variables in what boosts picture quality aside from the number
> >of chips. When I bought the 3i, I was advised it was better than
> >low-end 3 chips because of the technology Cannon use to scan an image.
> >Instead of 3 chips scanning for a colour each, or a regular 1 chip
> >scanning once for all three colours, the 3i scans 3 times, once for
> >each colour. In theory this gives better colour saturation and image
> >quality, though no one claims it is as good as higher end 3.
>
> I've learnt from experiences in other fields that the raw
> specifications don't nearly tell you the whole picture.
> It's an exciting project for me, but there's so much to learn that I
> find it overwhelming at times. I'm really grateful for all the help
> that I've received via these newsgroups. It's made a big difference.
>
> Love
>
> Crow

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:02:15 -0700, "someone" <mike@xyz.com> wrote:

>Just an aside about the camera choice.
>
>The image is only part of the whole package. The usability of the camera
>and especially the accommodations for audio are just if not more important.
>The ability to handle pro-audio accessories without XLR adapters, an ability
>to quickly control the camera (sometimes just Control the camera) are all
>very important.
>
>I also think it is very important to spend some time with the cameras in
>question.
>

Thanks,

Someone else suggested hiring or borrowing a camera before buying one,
which makes a lot of sense. I'm trying to get as clued up as I can on
what I should be looking for in a camera, before doing that.

You mentioned the need to accommodate pro-audio without XLR adaptors.
I don't think the cameras that I'm looking at have XLR adaptors, which
is why I guess you bring this point up. What specifically should I be
looking for in the pro-audio accessories area?

I've just looked at a Sony DSR-PDX10 because its 16:9 quality is meant
to be good for its class and the spec states, 'Twin XLR audio input
adaptor & 48v 'phantom' mic powering (supplied)'. That sounds good to
my naïve ears. Does having the twin XLRs means you can have two mics
recording simultaneously? i.e. one for the interviewer and another
for the interviewee.

Love

Crow

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Crow <crow@vacionido.NOSPAM.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2l4hc0pl24ii25c3ol5c1nt83ofa0nee3c@4ax.com>...
> On 9 Jun 2004 21:23:26 -0700, s.fry@onthe.net.au (Snooz) wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input. The portability of the MVX3i is very appealing
> to me, as well as the price. Are there things about the Canon that
> you aren't so happy with?

Can't think of anything substantial. Getting in and out of menus to
control the camera's functions/settings isn't fast (but all the others
I looked at seemed as bad!) Of course you always wonder if the
pictures wouldn't be that much better on one of the pro models...

> >I agree with the previous comment - you'll learn how to use whatever
> >you've got pretty quickly.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here, as the sentence seems to
> contradict itself!

Sorry, was referring to the comment from the other person who posted,
rather than your last comment. Bottom line - I guess all cameras have
their peculiarities and you will learn your way round any of them
quickley. On the learning curve for film making, operating the camera
is a mere blip.

> I've learnt from experiences in other fields that the raw
> specifications don't nearly tell you the whole picture.
> It's an exciting project for me, but there's so much to learn that I
> find it overwhelming at times. I'm really grateful for all the help
> that I've received via these newsgroups. It's made a big difference.

So what's the project??
Suzie