Ross McArthur Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Hey going abroad next week to a tax haven and im thinking of buying a HD camera (video). dont really know much about them. Ive got a packard bell lap top with windows vista on it and want to edit vids on it so it has to be compatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 I've said it before and I'll say it again - unless you're putting out real, proper, genuine high quality DVDs, there's not really any point in having a HD camera. You won't really get any benefits out of it at all. It'll take up more memory on your hard-drive, take longer to process on your computer, you'll lose most of the quality when you rape the f**k out of the end product by hosting it online, etc. It's like when people buy a bike. If you buy a £300 full sus bike, they've got to spend a load of money from the budget on the suspension and shit like that, meaning overall you're getting a pretty sub-par bike. If you spent £300 on a fully rigid bike or just a hardtail, they can spend more money making the bike good, rather than having the gimmick of rear suspension. Just get a normal DV or hard-drive/flash-based camera and you'll have a better quality camera for the same price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross McArthur Posted May 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 I've said it before and I'll say it again - unless you're putting out real, proper, genuine high quality DVDs, there's not really any point in having a HD camera. You won't really get any benefits out of it at all. It'll take up more memory on your hard-drive, take longer to process on your computer, you'll lose most of the quality when you rape the f**k out of the end product by hosting it online, etc. It's like when people buy a bike. If you buy a £300 full sus bike, they've got to spend a load of money from the budget on the suspension and shit like that, meaning overall you're getting a pretty sub-par bike. If you spent £300 on a fully rigid bike or just a hardtail, they can spend more money making the bike good, rather than having the gimmick of rear suspension. Just get a normal DV or hard-drive/flash-based camera and you'll have a better quality camera for the same price. really? do people agree with this? Ive seen vids on here by the likes of Jonny jones and the 26twenty lot and I can easyly see the difference between HD and normal DV. Ive got a HD tv and notice the differene between the old tv I had. thanks for the input but I think ill stil get a HD camera, can anyone give me any other advice? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Noticing the difference between a new and old TV isn't that big a deal, I noticed it between my two non-HD TVs. What I was getting at is how often are you planning on making DVDs and shit like that, or are you just going to stick with hosting them on sites like Vimeo, Youtube, Trialstube, etc.? If it's just for online stuff I just don't really see the point. If you want a normal, good quality camera to look good, don't compress it as much. People are willing to download massive files on the promise they're "HD" despite the fact they're not going to be viewable as "HD" and they'll have been compressed, so if they're willing to do that I'm sure they'd be willing to download your normal video if it was a slightly larger file size, if the quality was better (By not compressing your conventional footage as much)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) Although I'm expert, based on my rudimentry understanding and experience I would say that HD cameras, even with regards to the net, do make a substantial difference - all films I've seen that were produced in HD looked a lot nicer than those that weren't. I would be suspicious of assuming that an uncompressed DV file would look better than a compressed HD file of the same size regarding the same footage. Considering with how cheap HD cameras are as well, it seems to like a worthy investment over a standard DV cameras. Also you still get to watch it yourself in the highest quality regardless if nobody else does. I love the quality of my HD camera edit: I meant to say "although I'm NO expert" ~ Edited May 29, 2008 by rowly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Yeah, I'm a bit dubious of Mark's opinion. On a video uploaded to trialstube, all other things being equal, you wouldn't see any difference between something that was filmed in HD and something that wasn't. BUT most people buy the cheapest miniDV camera they can find, so the quality of the lens is going to be poor, and you can tell. But that's not a fair comparison with someone like JonnyJones who have got an expensive (HD) camera. What does an entry level HD camera cost? £400 ish? I have no idea what sort of miniDV camera you get for that price, so I can't really comment. But the cost of simply sticking a slightly higher res sensor in the same camera is probably not a lot, so I'd be surprised if you pay much of a premium for an HD cam. Plus everyone's after HD stuff these days so the economies of scale come into action, which will potentially bring down the price of HD stuff to the same level as miniDV. Plus tapes are so 1980s. But like I say: I have no idea what sort of miniDV camera you get for that price, so I can't really comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat Smith! Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 i can tell the difference between inurs videos and say damons, so there is a difference, and it is worth it if your looking for top quality, i wanted one, but got a mini dv because it was 10x cheaper, and my computer most likely wouldnt be able to take it. Matx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross McArthur Posted May 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 Im reading all your posts guys and loving the reactions. Im getting a good battle from both sides of hd and non hd but hd for, seems to be being that little bit more convinsing im going to get it mega cheap from abroad so itl be a good idea to take advantage of the situation. And ive got the spare cash. No one know what one to get then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 In brief - Trust OBM. He knows everything there is to know about everything thats worth knowing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 For the money you are looking at spending on a so called "cheap HD" camera, you could have bought a proper high quality manual DV camera. I had the same dilema a couple of years back when HD was just coming out, but the difference between, for example a £1000 DV camera and a £1000 HD camera, isnt actually all that great and you will get so much more usability from the DV camera. For online videos hosted on some god-awful 320x240 website, I cant see why you would bother with HD. You arent going to notice it, and in my personal oppinion, even on full screen downloadable videos, I cant say I would enjoy a video any less, just because it wasn't in HD. Look back just a few weeks, when there was a 7 minute video of Benito Ross, that was over 1GB! 1GB for 7 minutes. Most peoples responce to that was "Im not downloading 1gb for 7 minutes" and I completely agree. It wasnt all that amazing quality, and it wasnt any better of a video because its HD. Before you pay out on something that may not be beneficial to you, can I suggest booking in an appointment at Creative Video Productions. They will give you as long as you need, bring out virtually any camera on the market, for you to sit and play with and offer the best advice available anywhere. Its something I would suggest anyone buying a camera should do. I cant sit here and tell you NOT to buy HD, because of my own oppinions on it. You need to play with one, and see if it really is beneficial to YOUR needs. Look at non HD cameras as well, such the Canon XL2, the Panasonic DVX100 or the Sony VX2100. These cameras offer far more usability (in the same way as an SLR over a standard compact) over a standard HD camera. Food for thought there, but I really would suggest going to CVP for a chat. Their website is http://www.creativevideo.co.uk and they are such a brilliant group of guys. Jonny Jones and myself swear by the place, and its where I buy all my camera parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 You don't need to spend £1000 to get a HD camera though. My mum recently bought one of those tiny panasonic cameras. The quality is superb and it only cost £400 - I saw overs within the £300 range. I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a manual camera for that amount? In fact I suspect that a 'decent' budget (automatic) DV camera is probably not much cheaper. Remember also that internet badnwidth is always increasing and previously a 100-200mb file size that would have seemed way too big to download is now no problem. May well be the same for 1gb in the not too distant future. It just seems sensible to me to pay a little more for something that will last longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_travis Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Ross, when ur over there, let me know how much u get a HD camera for and ill see if i can afford for you to buy me one!!! ta min Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Can we have any idea of roughly how much you want to spend? Like Rowly says, you can get HD cams for £400 and stuff, but then again for that you can also get an allright little 3CCD mini dv camera. Or you can buy a HD cam for £1000's but you can also buy amazing mini dv cameras for that. And as for comparing Inurs footage and some other randomer with a little miniDV camera, theres no point. Inurs camera cost £1000s, if you compared a VX2100 (an miniDV cam thats about £2000) and the cheaper MiniDV footage there would also be an incredible difference. But yer, need a price range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) I've said it before and I'll say it again - unless you're putting out real, proper, genuine high quality DVDs, there's not really any point in having a HD camera. You won't really get any benefits out of it at all. It'll take up more memory on your hard-drive, take longer to process on your computer, you'll lose most of the quality when you rape the f**k out of the end product by hosting it online, etc. Just get a normal DV or hard-drive/flash-based camera and you'll have a better quality camera for the same price. Have you ever actually used an HD camera? HD footage takes up the same amount of space as DV footage. Editing times I agree with, they're unbearable unless you have a quad core Intel which copes rather well. However, even if you export a HD footage to 720x480, the quality will be miles better than any standard definition camera. I'll give you an example, top vid is shot with a consumer HD camera, the bottom one is shot with a consumer SD camera. Still think there's no difference at all? Trials-Forum Video ->Full View • Download • Upload Trials-Forum Video ->Full View • Download • Upload edit: just read this topic, seems like these vids have already been discussed. My camera is a Canon HV20, it's getting pretty cheap now. TRA uses the same one but somehow his vids look much better. Maybe it's the Norwegian air. I'm not sure I'd recommend the HV20 over a Sony HC7 due to how it handles extreme lighting conditions but it's a very good little camera indeed. The VX2100 mentioned above is in a different league really. Even though it's standard definition, it will give much better colour reproduction and handle exposure better than most consumer hi def cameras. So if you're looking for the "pro video" look, the VX2100 will be the better choice even though you can get a pretty good hi def for that price. If you want to edit HD on a laptop you need a pretty powerful setup. A 2,4ghz C2D and 4gb of RAM will handle the process of editing very well and render around 280 frames per minute of HD (compressed to deinterlaced CBR 1280x720 WMV with 100% image quality setting in Premiere and 3.5mbps video data rate). In other words, that's about 35mb for each minute of video in high quality and with 50 frames per second. On a stationary setup, an Intel Q6600 will render about 650 frames per minute and an Amd X2 6000+ about 320. On the other hand, a single core A64 3500+ will only do about 90. Dunno what you've got in your laptop but that should help you find out if it's up to HD editing. Edited May 30, 2008 by Inur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 Theres no denying the HD one has a crisper edge to it, (and this may be down to my computer, my company doesnt like to splash out) but the SD video seems far more fluid comapred to the HD one. The HD one had a very slight jump between each frame, only about 10ms, but enough to make it look like it was exported in 20fps. And again, I didnt enjoy the first video any more, just because it was HD. Sat in front of my TV watching a Hollywood movie, an entirely different experience, but watching a trials or a bmx video on my pc, in a 320x240 window on a website, to fill my time.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 first thing i thought when i watched the HD one: "f**kin' hell, look at that quality." I you've got the space for the HD files, and the money for a HD camera, buy one I won't, i'm going for SD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Jones Posted May 30, 2008 Report Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) Yeah the HD one is staggered. In fact all online HD videos ive seen (Vimeo etc) are all staggered. High-quality streaming, reduced frame-rate = whats the point in having HD playback if it aint smooth? Never thought I'd say this but yeah, just get as good a SD camera as you can. There's a Panasonic 3CCD camera out (Jack Meek recently bought it, Phil Feeney already had it - used this as a reference point in suggesting it to Jack) but its a little outside of your budget. Widescreen, great image quality! The one Jack bought - Amazon link Its little Brother (cheaper, within your budget, still 3CCD though!) - Amazon link The only downside of these two Panny' cameras is ive always thought the viewfinder sucked! But just use the LCD screen for everything and you can't got wrong - easier usablility that way too! Highly recommend getting a high-capacity battery for the camera too - eBay has everything you need! - Basically just search for your camera and batteries and extra chargers will come up. Ive found if you buy batteries that have the bright green/yellow packaging (made by a company called Espow) then you can't go wrong - ie 100% compatibility + charging rates, as sometimes cameras have circuits in that wont let non-brand batteries charge properly. Hope I've helped! Edited May 30, 2008 by Jonny Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross McArthur Posted June 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Thanks for the help guys, ill let you know what I decide on later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme_biker0 Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 People are saying that if you are uploading to youtube, which is SD, you wont get any benefit from an HD camera. This is not true. The compresion algorithms (codecs) can take advangate of the higher definition of the source video. This can be seen in the youtube videos by Inur above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Those are TrialsTube vids, which I think have a slightly different system behind them, and show the quality a lot better than PooPube does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyoyo Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Look back just a few weeks, when there was a 7 minute video of Benito Ross, that was over 1GB! 1GB for 7 minutes. Most peoples responce to that was "Im not downloading 1gb for 7 minutes" and I completely agree. It wasnt all that amazing quality, and it wasnt any better of a video because its HD. In all fairness though, i remember back in the day when you had to leave the computer on over night to download a trials video. Good old 56k. So give it a year or two and we might be able to download a gb in a shoter time than now and hard drives will have more space on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Scarlet Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Theres the argument that the higher the quality, the bigger then file sizes. But, the higher the quality, the more you can compress without losing too much quality. You could render a crap quality at a lower rate, lose tons on the file size, but have no quality. HD, render at a low rate, keeps its quality better and good file sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.