Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Cheap Div X cameras ??

..::- Chris -::..

19-Sep-2003
11:30:17 AM

Anyone know where or/and how much I'm looking at for a cheap Movie camera, I've already got a really really old analog camera, but i'm looking to upgrade to digital (plug and play) that works well, with my Pc. Not wanting to spend much as I only use it for recording climbing, gigs and parties for viewing by me and friends, (So not needing it to be ready for the BIG screen.) Don't need any fancy features as I've got software to do all that sort of stuff, Just wanting the basics.
Thanks in advance:
Chris.

James

19-Sep-2003
12:31:39 PM

just get any old miniDV camera. There are heaps of brands/models round, anywhere from $1,200 - $4,500 (perhaps even more). I think the more expensive ones are just smaller. Buy them at any old camera shop, even places like myer or retravision have cheap deals sometimes. Easy to use on a PC, but lots of RAM, hard disk space & a decent video card make life easier.

mine is a basic cannon camera & it does the job fine. I just use if for shooting my own stuff & make a few short movies - photos that move & talk. The couple videos shot on my camera that Neil has put on here on chockstone is as close as I get to broadcasting/publishing.

nmonteith

19-Sep-2003
1:11:38 PM

The cheaper cameras defiantly shoot poorer quality pictures. Spending over $2K will produce much better images. James, i find the qaulity of your camera pretty bad compared ot the consumer mini DV Sony cameras I have used. The pictures are soft and the color quality is poor.

V

19-Sep-2003
1:20:19 PM

I bought a Sony TRV16 about a year ago. Cost me about $1500, probably cheaper nowadays though. Even though it's at the bottom of the MiniDV range, I've been more than happy with the features on it -- it does great night vision footage and has an awesome zoom. Ultra reliable, I've used it in subzero conditions in the mountains, even in the rain with a home-made cover (take a UV filter and one ziploc bag, cut holes, use rubber bands). The camera is pretty light as well. Capture to PC is via USB (poor quality) or FireWire (awesome quality). I can film for about 2 hours using the viewfinder (as opposed to the LCD) before the batteries run out.

You're probably after a 1-chip MiniDV camera. I would recommend getting the latest technology standard, AFAIK it's still MiniDV. Also it's worth spending the extra cash to buy a decent FireWire card (I have a Pinnacle), but USB capture is okay to start with. It's also worth having a spare battery, UV filter, mini tripod ($10 from Ted's Cameras, can also be used as a grip). I've found I don't really need heaps of features, it's better to buy a simple, decent quality camcorder. (Some of the more advanced Sony models had larger LCD screens, memory sticks, and other stuff.)

James: I think you may have seen my camera in action over summer -- the first cut of the movie is now complete!

dodgy

19-Sep-2003
1:23:06 PM

The other day I saw a Canon XL1S for about 3.5K (secondhand with a warranty), about 1/2 retail. If you want something nice?
http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/xl1s_flash.html

James

19-Sep-2003
2:13:25 PM

my video camera has very much been a trial & error learning experience since I bought it 6 months ago. I've never compared the footage from my camera closely with anything else, but I guess Neil would notice it more given that he works with film for a living!
although I do agree that the colour reproduction isn't great on overcast days (I thought that was just an inherent limitation of the miniDV format). In any case I am happy with my camera - it does the job that I wanted it for.

V - I think I remember your high-tech rain cover & also the "head cam" from up at Gardiner Hut. I would be keen to see how the head cam turned out & also the finished video when you're done.

phil_nev

19-Sep-2003
2:27:36 PM

james, u are a freind of scotty nelson yes?????

V

19-Sep-2003
2:55:37 PM

On 19/09/2003 James wrote:
>V - I think I remember your high-tech rain cover & also the "head cam"
>from up at Gardiner Hut. I would be keen to see how the head cam turned
>out & also the finished video when you're done.

Yep, that's the one! I didn't actually get to use the head cam in NZ. I knew that the quality would be poor because it doesn't have a lens, so I was only going to use it when it wasn't possible to get a hand free. But the problem with this is that you have to reach into the rucksack to start and stop the camcorder recording. Which means that if you're going to be on steep, inhospitable ground for a while, the camcorder has to be rolling the whole time.

So I'm thinking the camcorder needs some kind of a remote -- it has an infrared remote, but of course this won't work through the wall of a canvas pack and padded camera bag. So some kind of wired remote that would clip onto a jacket would be necessary.

All the same I managed to get some good climbing action footage. The trick is either to climb solo or have more than one rope party, so that you can stop and shoot footage of someone else moving. I managed to do this successfully in a couple of places, and got some spectacular action footage.

I still have some fine tuning to do, mainly cos some of the titles currently look crap, but I'll let you know when the movie is ready for distribution -- maybe I can spin you a copy. It fits on a single SVCD, so I can put in on a regular CD-R. It's approximately 45 minutes long. Maybe we could organise a chockstone review? :-)

BTW, I also brought a solar panel with me up to Tasman Saddle and used it to recharge the spare camera battery. The panel was a little heavy, but suitable for base camp (we were camped on the hill) and much cheaper than commercial rigs I've seen advertised on the web. I don't know of anyone else that's done this.

Mike

19-Sep-2003
3:04:03 PM

A little later in the year I might be tempted to sell my Sony PC120 (see: About page on Chockstone), for, well, lets say around $3k if I could get it. Simply stunning video quality. Two years ago it was the best 1 chipper on the market, but is due to be replaced by a new version, the PC330, in October, which is esstentially the same camera but with greater stills abilities. I'm drolling at idea of upgrading, but unless I could get an excellent price for the old one I doubt I could afford it.

It terms of video quality you get what you pay for. You might think, well the DV standard is like 720 x 576 (0.4 Mega pixel or there abouts), so how can buying a 1.3 mega pixel or greater video camera possibly do better? Well if anyone has even shrunk a digital photo they'll know. The more pixels you start with the better (sharper, more accurate) the smaller image looks. Plus some of those pixels are used by stablisation. Often also, the more you spend the better the lens and metering systems, etc. And you might get a bigger CCD, able to handle low light better.

But, that said, you need 3 chips to satisfy the likes of Neil. From comparisons I believe my PC120 produces results as good as some cheaper 3CCD video cameras, and has the advantage (for climbing), of being very small. But if you didn't care about size, there are good 3CCD video camera's about for less than $4k.

nmonteith

19-Sep-2003
3:59:28 PM

We used a Sony TRv30 (i think) single chip sony camera for our Baffin docoumentry. It produced resonible results which is just good enough for a low rent type 'reality' doco like we created. A three chip camera is much better. I would doubt very much that a still image 1.3mega pixel camera or higher function would actually have any effect on the moving picture-video quality of the camera. They are entirely different functions. They certainly would not be down sampling the images on the fly.

James

19-Sep-2003
4:11:37 PM

Phil - I certianly do know Scotty (I climbed with him for a couple weeks in NZ last year). small world eh. How do you know him??

V - I am keen to hear about the solar panel (I am going to Nepal in November & have been trying to work out how to charge camera batteries). I might e-mail you offline about this.

..::- Chris -::..

19-Sep-2003
4:12:16 PM

Thanks for all your help everyone, not sure if i wanted to spend that much for the amount that i would use it, and how quickly they go out of date, I will count my pennies and see what i come up with..

Thankyou to all, have a great weekend, and for those heading to Araps,
see ya up there !!! : )

Mike

19-Sep-2003
4:16:30 PM

On 19/09/2003 nmonteith wrote:
>They certainly would not be down sampling the images on the fly.

Actually I beg to differ with you. If you read the spec sheets of the various models, and also read the tech reviews available, it becomes clear that the higher end models are indeed sampling video (not stills), at a greater resolultion than the DV standard using it to produce better video results. The stills ability of my sony video camera makes, as you say, little difference to the video, but the resolution captured and used for video, is certainly considerably more than that of the lower end models. Having played with several models the difference is evident, even without looking at the specs, though I could find them if you were interested.

Arh. Found the numbers:
PC120 Video Actual: 970K Pixels, RRP $4000 or so
TRV33 Video Actual: 690K Pixels, RRP $1500 or so

Basically, as I said, you get what you pay for. The lower end models sometimes have negative artifacts, (like pizelisation along contrasty lines, or colour bleeding). But I agree you need 3CCD for the best colour accuracy.

nmonteith

19-Sep-2003
4:19:12 PM

James - i reccomend buying a few of the large size camera battries instead of the solar panel. We had three of the large battries for Baffin Island and we shot 7 hours+ of footage over 5 weeks in sub zero temps. In fact we ran out of tapes before the battries died!

James

19-Sep-2003
4:22:47 PM

extra batteries was the other option. But I am still at least going to check out the solar panels to see what they are like.

V

19-Sep-2003
4:53:32 PM

On 19/09/2003 nmonteith wrote:
>James - i reccomend buying a few of the large size camera battries instead
>of the solar panel.

I looked at these batteries, but they were heinously expensive at ~$500 each -- assuming you mean the 6 hour capacity Li-ion variety. The solar panel was about $120 from memory, plus $100 for a universal Li-ion charger. But I guess they're more compact than the solar panel, and they work on cloudy days! Probably similar in weight though.

James

19-Sep-2003
5:16:42 PM

4 hour batteries for my camera are about $140 for the canon ones (or about $90 for no-name-brand versions). I think that batteries are sounding like a easier & more reliable option.

nmonteith

19-Sep-2003
5:21:26 PM

I think ours were under $300 each and that is for rip-off sony brand batteries.

V

20-Sep-2003
3:39:42 PM

If you can get them so cheaply then they're probably a better option than the solar panel. The ones I was looking at were Sony InfoLithium, and I assumed that only the proprietary Sony batteries would work, because there's some kind of additional circuitry in there. I think I'd get a no-name brand 6-hour battery for next time, if these are viable.

A tip: use the viewfinder only (not the LCD) if you want to preserve battery life -- it will last up to 50% longer. But I spose it's harder to get a clear, stable shot if your head is up against the camera all the time...

Cheesehead

21-Sep-2003
5:06:03 PM

With the exception of a lack of noise filtering (damn sub-zero sqeaks in the tape reel), I'd say that movie was a mighty fine effort Mr V (and not solely because I star in the closing coconut scene).

Shall see you anon. In the meantime shall have to tantilize with photographs of real waterfalls :)

Later, my friend. Stay safe

There are 20 messages in this topic.