[Malpine Walis]

OK, here is the deal. Where I work, we have in in mind to set up a (very) small scale video production group. And part of my job is going to be to select a new camera. As it happens, we have a really bad history with people making bad choices when buying video cameras for the company and I would rather go down as having made a right choice than as having made yet another bad one.

I have been looking for a camera on my own for a couple of weeks but I keep getting bogged down in technical standards that require me to branch out into finding out what they are and so on. However, the money to buy stuff is time limited and I am under pressure to have something acceptable ASAP.

So what I am thinking is to get a camera that uses the miniDV tapes, so that I can pull the original media and archive it when I just don't need it around. After that, I think that I am going to need to connect to a computer via either USB or firewire. However, apart from transfer rates, I really don't understand why the physical cable would play a role in capturing the video from the camera.

Past that, what I really want to see is a camera that will get my videos into a computer in some format that I can use fairly easily with open source software. Yet I really don't know much about the formats. Do I want to use AVI? H.264? Matroska? Something else?

What I do know is that my eventual output will need to be in FLV most of the time and burned to DVD at other times. Also, before I get to final output, I will want to be able to do some light editing such as cutting out unwanted sections and joining other sections. Past that, I would also want to be able to put text on screen either for titles/credits or as captions for the hearing impaired.

So at this point, I am just needing to get a handle on the technical standards. Even so, any recommendations would only help me here.

[Shelnutt2]

I recommend a video card that captures or a dedicated capture card, because anything that transfer's via usb/firewire, unless it is firewire b isn't going to be fast enough for a high quality transfer. I own a Pinnacle recording thing that captures over USB 2.0, and it's ok, but only about VHS quality. I'm still trying to find a good way to rip my mini-dvd's my Canon DC10 uses.

Also the Pinnacle studio 10 software I have with it is nice. It's not the best but you can do a lot with it. The only major issue I had was for some reason there was a bug with my motherboard and I've yet to get the USB capture device to be recognized with windows on my main rig so I can't install the drivers, so I've been using it off my laptop but it is multithreaded.

I'm currently looking into some open source software so I'll let you know how it goes on that front.

[PhysX]

HHD cams ftw

[rainless]

Well they have a lot of hard drive/DV hybrid cams if you just want something small...

I find HD way too tempting not to use, but you have to take the amount of hard drive space it's going to use into consideration.

In all honesty I'd still go with a Panasonic AG-DVX 100B. It has 24p, it allows you to do cool things like adjust the gamma curve, XLR mic jacks, and it still runs on tape.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...p_Mini_DV.html

I'd have to find that HD camera that had SDHC and DV tape though... if you want to do HD.

[LoneWolf121188]

First, what's your budget? I was originally going to suggest the Sony Z1 or the Canon XL H1 (both are friggin amazing cameras), but after a rereading it seems like that's going to be way overkill for you. So something more consumer and less prosumer...

First off: firewire. Period. Anything that uses USB for video transfer is just...unprofessional, IMO. Every single prosumer (and above) camera that I've used uses firewire. Also, every prosumer camera I've used uses MiniDV tapes. Don't get an HDD camera. They too strike me as gimicky and unprofessional. idk if they use any sort of compression, but on-camera compression just sounds like a bad idea to me.

At the consumer level, I feel like most cameras are going to be about the same. Find something with nice optics, a decent zoom, a good sized LCD...I'd imagine anything by Panasonic, Sony, and Canon would be fine. As usual, you get what you pay for.

[Morvak]

Sony Handycam.

[Malpine Walis]

Well, I really want to stay away from hard disk recording as much as possible. Partially because archiving the raw footage is going to be so much easier with miniDV tapes. However, as I noted above, we have a history of buying stuff very poorly.

As it happens, we already have a couple of video cameras that are not very old but are between them a nearly total waste of a couple thousand dollars. The most recent one is in fact a hard drive based unit. It can only be connected to anything else either by the old RCA composite cable (with a proprietary connector at the camera end) or by proprietary connection to something called a “docking station” that is actually a stand alone DVD burner.

I do like the idea of having XLR mic inputs on the camera though. However, that is the only one that I have found so far that has that feature. If I am willing to go with the normal stereo mini mic input, that opens up quite a few more options for me.

As far as shooting in hi-def, I don't think that I need it right now. And I am not in a “buy once” scenario but I would like to see whatever I buy still in use in a couple of years. This camera looks like it might fit well:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...Model=AG-DVC20

[Malpine Walis]

Originally Posted by Shelnutt2

I'm currently looking into some open source software so I'll let you know how it goes on that front.

Ah, perhaps I can offer you something then since I have been looking at FOSS editing for a few weeks now. But first, let me give you a bit of background. There are very few tech savvy people in the company and I have to set this up and train non-technical users to do as much of the work as possible. So instead of getting one program that can do everything and has a really confusing interface, I am opting for a few programs that each do one thing and have a rather minimal interface. With that in mind, here is the software that I am looking at:

CDex is just a ripper. It will rip an entire CD in a couple of minutes. A bit longer if you want the output in ogg/flac/mp3/whatever. Good for pulling some background sounds from CDs.

Audacity is for editing audio. Just used straight up, you can take any audio stream and do basic filtering and cut and paste work. You can also add as many extra tracks as you like and edit them with the same tools, then merge them together for a finished product. If you want to do more complicated stuff, it uses standard audio plugins and over 200 are known to work just fine.

Avidemux is for transcoding files into other formats. Actually, you get two programs in the package. One for the transcoding and another that will do basic cut and paste on full videos. One nice feature is that you can go to individual frames by number to set your cut points.

VirtualDub is a more feature packed video editor for the times when you need extra tools. If you just need to cut up a video into clips, stick with avidemux and keep the interface minimal. However, as noted, if you need more, this is more. There is also a program called virtualdubmod that has other tools for even more possibilities but I have not downloaded that one yet.

Sherlock is just a single exe file that you probably will not even need unless you run into trouble with a codec. Then you run it and it scans your system, tells you what is already installed and what you need to add to have full functionality on your system.

[LoneWolf121188]

Originally Posted by Malpine Walis

As far as shooting in hi-def, I don't think that I need it right now. And I am not in a “buy once” scenario but I would like to see whatever I buy still in use in a couple of years. This camera looks like it might fit well:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...Model=AG-DVC20

I'm tempted to suggest the Canon GL2 over that Panasonic for that price range. I haven't used the Panasonic, but the GL2 was probably the first prosumer camera I used and I can vouch that its a damn solid camera. For one thing, it has 1/4" CCDs, while the Panasonic has 1/6". Also, it has 20x zoom, while the Panasonic only has 10x. The canon looks a little smaller and lighter too.

[Malpine Walis]

Well, I am also looking at Canon cameras as well. That being said, I would prefer to keep the cost down as long as I can have microphone inputs and some reasonable amount of on camera controls. I have money to spend from a grant to update our technology but the grant is for the whole operation and any money that I don't spend can be used to replace some of our older computers.

In fact, I was asked for a preliminary estimate and I told them that they should hold onto $4,000 for me until labor day. I would do my best to return a huge chunk of that to the pots but as of last week, when asked, I did not even know if I was going to have to buy a computer for the purpose. as it turns out, there is a phenom that has not been allocated just yet that I can snag, so that part is taken care of.

Even so, given the choice of a $2,000 camera or a $1,500 one, I have to think about the people who are stuck on machines that are pretty old. I know that there are at least two in the main building that only have 20gb hard drives. They may be fast enough for word processing but I know that the people who are stuck on them drool over the newer machines.

Also, what would the difference be between optical and digital image stabilization? My personal (8 year old) camera has digital image stabilization and I have not noticed too much of a problem with it provided that you don't treat the camera so roughly that it just cannot keep up.

[LoneWolf121188]

Originally Posted by Malpine Walis

Also, what would the difference be between optical and digital image stabilization? My personal (8 year old) camera has digital image stabilization and I have not noticed too much of a problem with it provided that you don't treat the camera so roughly that it just cannot keep up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
As far as which is better...I'm tempted to say optical, but I don't really have any evidence to support that other than intuition.