Anyone know anything about 3ccd video cameras? *update*

[slackerinabox]

I need to get one pretty soon for student film work but can't decide.. I'm broke so this makes the decision harder - I would normally just bit the bullet and get an XL1s or a VX2100.. But now I have to pinch every penny... Panasonic makes a line of affordable 3ccd cameras that go for around $900 (for the best one in the series)...Should I go with that or spend the money on a trv-950 by sony or a GL2 by canon... Are they worth the extra $700?

I decided that low light performance was important to me so I got the Canon GL-2 - $1800 shipped from a reliable dealer... Yes, I'm excited!

 

[murphy55d]

I have been told that 3ccd cameras are pretty awful in low-light conditions. I'm certainly no expert, but that's what I heard an expert say.

 

[eLiTeGoodGuy]

Ohhhh no I've been told that's why they are soo good, in low light levels able to pick up way better than what a single CCD video cam can pick up

 

[Compudork]

..

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Compudork
YAY! Finally a thread I can contribute to!! I am a video artist, and I have used about every consumer and prosumer camera under the sun, I have personally owned VX2000s, PD150s, DVX100s, Xl1s, Gl2s amonst other units.

Murphy55d, either that "expert" is confused, talks out of his butt, or mispoke. Generally in low light, 3CCD cameras blow most single chippers out of the water (with a few exceptions), but there is variation in the 3CCD realm as well. The Sony models are awesome in low light, often, I find that sometimes the camera picks up things brighter that I can see them, next in line is the DVX100 and the Canon models behind them.

Usually, money does make a difference with these cameras. I would say go with a VX2000 if you can afford it, prices are dropping with the release of the VX2100, and there is really not a big difference between the two otherwise (people have said they prefer their VX2000 over their VX2100). I am assuming the Panasonic models you are talking about are the DV-953, I haven't used those, but I have heard good and bad things. For the money they are great cameras, but I still think it's worth investing more for a VX2000 because it is better all around. I have breifly used the TRV900 and I think those are really nice as well, and if I had to choose between that and the GL2, I'd take the 900. The TRV950 sucks in low light, Sony really dropped the ball on that one, it is actually a step back from the 900 in many respects, and I would NEVER buy 950. If you want, have a visit over to the dvinfo.net forums. You will find a TON of information on all of these cameras and see which one fits you best. Good luck!

Hey man,
Thanks for the info.. (firstly, I'll always be shooting with studio lights- low light performance is not that important to me) I actually owned at trv900 and, while lots of people praise it, I found the video to look VERY much like video.. There was an odd reddish tint to all the footage and lots of aliasing (i know that's not the real term).. Also, the contrast was a bit unrealistic as well. Back then (the late 90s) I wasn't much into post production and much of those issues can be fixed, but I'd like a camera that produces really life like images (as opposed to the very clinical look of the trv900).

I used an xl1 for my last shoot and noticed a few things that bugged me and a few things that I liked.. Firstly, the footage did look more like film - the image was nice and balanced and did not have as many hot spots as my TRV usually had.. I can't put my finger on what exactly made the footage look so life like, but I guess i could say that it was nice and "warm." I did not like how muddy some of the footage look - seems like the camera really emphasized browns.. Looks very ugly after a while.. The camera I used also wouldn't hold a focus! I know this problem has been fixed but I can't afford a new xl1s..

So that's why I'm having a hard time.. I can spend a MAX of $1800 (with tax/shipping) and need to buy a new camera because I'm petrified of blowing over a grand on an ebay auction. The DV953 has gotten decent reviews but also many people fault it's image quality is being a few steps behind the 950/gl2... Any thoughts? I've seen footage from the 950 and it doesn't really impress me... I wish I still had my trv900!

 

[murphy55d]

I stand corrected then. I was 99% sure though I heard someone from camcorderinfo.com say that generally, 3ccd cameras operated much worse in low-light conditions than single-ccd cameras. Again, as I said, I am certainly no expert.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I stand corrected then. I was 99% sure though I heard someone from camcorderinfo.com say that generally, 3ccd cameras operated much worse in low-light conditions than single-ccd cameras. Again, as I said, I am certainly no expert.

Hey,
I believe that you're not 100% wrong here.. GENERALLY, 3ccd cameras have a low pixel count.. For example, the xl1 has something like 270k or something dismal like that.. Most 1ccd cameras have around 800k... The higher the pixel count the better the low light performance.. I'm no expert but I believe that's were the assumption that 1ccd cameras do better in low light comes from.. BUT I believe that the reading on 3ccd cameras are PER ccd.. So the new GL2s have 410k.. That's 410k x 3...

 

[Compudork]

..

 

[TechnoKid]

I like the feature on one of the panasonics that lets you shoot in 24fps. Compudork, do you konw what one that is? I would think that it would give you the most realistic "film" look. Sometimes a softening lense could give you that film look. Often I can tell a film source from video because of the color of the whites, the sharpness and grain, and the way moving video reacts (often a video camera has a faster shutter speed so things don't tend to "blur" when panning the camera, at least this is waht I have obsserved; its kinda hard to describe what I am talking about, but I am sure you know what I mean).

 

[s4man]

I am going to have to throw my opinon on this........

My choice,
Used Panasonic DVX100.....thats the 24 fps one mentioned earlier.

With the intro of the DVX100a, now everyone, including me, is unloading the DVX100, for the "a" model, b/c they fixed the bugs. I have seen the DVX100 going for just a hair over 2K....of course you have to look...but certainly will blow away all other cameras under 4K.

I would honestly suggest just saving, stealing, borrowing the money and getting the 100....simply based upon the fact that no sense in buy a ok camera, if your going to use it, might as well get something you can use again, and again....and will be able to perform up to par.

Many options would force my choice for this camera, even though its a few hundred over budget. First and foremost, XLR mic inputs. Most other cameras...with the exception of XL1, PD150.....dont have these, you can get the converters....for about 200 bucks, but still. Sound is very important, even if this shoot is MOS, at some point you will want to shoot with sound, and what then, buy the box, or a new camera.

Second, the DVX100 is by far best picture/color/controls quality I have seen. I have 3 PD-150's, and I have used them side by side, on a split screen on a 13' studio monitor, the result is unbelievable. I mean to defend sony though, the PD-150 was great for a while.

Third, its a real buyers market on the 100, non a, b/c the "a" is all the rage right now, and people are selling them off to purchase the "a"
My friend just got a 100 non a, with 3 lenses, (1 being a $600 anamorphic lens) A matte box, zoom/focus controler, and it only had 15 drum hours on it....He picked it up for 2800....but add up the extras which totaled 1500....so he would have payed about 2200 without the stuff. Makes me sad thinking of depreciation....

Nothing will look better than a DVX100a with a person that knows how to use it. It is literally all over the industry right now, cheap and work well, cant beat that.

Anyhow...good luck. Remeber, like everything else in life you get what you pay for. Borrow some money from a friend, parent, spouse whatever, get the damn DVX100....

 

[Compudork]

n/m

 

[slackerinabox]

Hey guys,
Thanks for the input. The dvx100(a) is a stunning camera but compudork is correct -it's WAY out of my budget (twice my budget, actually).. I've shot on 16mm before and can actually get a used crystal sync camera for less than the dvx100. I'm also broke right now and work only 4 hours a week so I'm depending on my parents for a loan and can't squeeze another penny out of them. The trv950, gl2, and dv953 are in my budget (the gl2 is not , really, but I think I can pull a few strings to afford that).

You're exactly right about the accessories... I thought the dv953 would be a great choice because for around $1200 I can get the camera with a decent quality wide angle adapter, extra batteries, and a UV filter to protect the lens... I already have some nice sound gear (senheisser boom mic and pole and a portable mixer with XLR jacks)... So I'm really thinking about this camera but there's not much info out there about it.. Also, the one-ccd Optura XI is very tempting..... I wouldn't mind getting a used camera but my parents refuse to lend me $$ for one...

 

[Compudork]

Here are a couple links with comparison shots you may want to check out:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/print.php3?display=bhshootoff_3chip_group

http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/950_vs_5000/index.htm - This is a comparison of the TRV950 and the MX5000 which is the Japanese version of the DV953. Its all in japanese, but you can click the pictures to see direct comparisons.

Thats all i could find after a quick search, but I'm sure there is more out there. You may want to look on Cnet and other review sites for user reviews. I suggest just reading nagative posts to find out what people DIDN'T like about the camera, I think you'll find that many times the complaints people have won't really concern you that much (I've seen lots of people rate the VX2000 negatively simply because the still pictures are low res...)

But good luck finding what you want. Of those three cameras my vote goes to the DV953. I have heard good and bad things about each camera, but that would be the one I choose if I had to.

 

[gUEv]

why are you buying a camaera to shoot a film? why not rent one and use the leftover money to rent/buy equipment and expendables?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I need to get one pretty soon for student film work but can't decide.. I'm broke so this makes the decision harder - I would normally just bit the bullet and get an XL1s or a VX2100.. But now I have to pinch every penny... Panasonic makes a line of affordable 3ccd cameras that go for around $900 (for the best one in the series)...Should I go with that or spend the money on a trv-950 by sony or a GL2 by canon... Are they worth the extra $700?

let us know how your pr0n flick goes, are you going to be the one hittinh the models or are you getting someone in for that?

 

[kami]

Save up for a Panny DVX100, get a loan...anything. It's worth it. I personally own two of them and they're like children to me.

 

[Tom]

How important will HD camcorders be for this kind of use ?

I saw somewhere there will soon be an HD camcorder for around $3500.


techtv review

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I stand corrected then. I was 99% sure though I heard someone from camcorderinfo.com say that generally, 3ccd cameras operated much worse in low-light conditions than single-ccd cameras. Again, as I said, I am certainly no expert.

Hey,
I believe that you're not 100% wrong here.. GENERALLY, 3ccd cameras have a low pixel count.. For example, the xl1 has something like 270k or something dismal like that.. Most 1ccd cameras have around 800k... The higher the pixel count the better the low light performance.. I'm no expert but I believe that's were the assumption that 1ccd cameras do better in low light comes from.. BUT I believe that the reading on 3ccd cameras are PER ccd.. So the new GL2s have 410k.. That's 410k x 3...

But the higher res 1CCD cameras have a mosiac RGB pattern. The 3CCD cameras have 1 pixel for each RGB so the colours are more true.

Kind of like the 3x Feron CDD compared to all the others. The res scales up to about 1.8x it's actual res.

Lots of porn films are shot on the VX2000. I'd go with that myself if I had the £££. Looks great and is very popular. BUT all 3 of the cameras you mentioned are very popular themselves.

So what are you going to go with?!

I have a PC120E myself

Koing

 

[hawkeye81x]

All this talk of decent video cameras makes me want to scrounge up some dough and get in the business (without the professional film school jazz).

But seriously, all this nitpicky stuff about the quality of film must be a side issue when it comes to the actual material being shot. First and foremost, it has to be a good story with a point. Otherwise it's just photography. Just offering the reminder so when don't churn out the next pointless director

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: gUEv
why are you buying a camaera to shoot a film? why not rent one and use the leftover money to rent/buy equipment and expendables?

Hey,
I shoot short films every two weeks or so... That would get very expensive very quickly. I also am currently camless- I would have to rent a camera to edit on as well.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: hawkeye81x
All this talk of decent video cameras makes me want to scrounge up some dough and get in the business (without the professional film school jazz).

But seriously, all this nitpicky stuff about the quality of film must be a side issue when it comes to the actual material being shot. First and foremost, it has to be a good story with a point. Otherwise it's just photography. Just offering the reminder so when don't churn out the next pointless director

Hey,
I'm firstly a wannabe writer and then a wannabe film maker... I can send you a link to my scripts if you'd like - I'm VERY concerned about the quality of what's being shot more than what we're shooting on... But, you know, we kinda need a camera to capture those scripts with

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I stand corrected then. I was 99% sure though I heard someone from camcorderinfo.com say that generally, 3ccd cameras operated much worse in low-light conditions than single-ccd cameras. Again, as I said, I am certainly no expert.

Hey,
I believe that you're not 100% wrong here.. GENERALLY, 3ccd cameras have a low pixel count.. For example, the xl1 has something like 270k or something dismal like that.. Most 1ccd cameras have around 800k... The higher the pixel count the better the low light performance.. I'm no expert but I believe that's were the assumption that 1ccd cameras do better in low light comes from.. BUT I believe that the reading on 3ccd cameras are PER ccd.. So the new GL2s have 410k.. That's 410k x 3...

But the higher res 1CCD cameras have a mosiac RGB pattern. The 3CCD cameras have 1 pixel for each RGB so the colours are more true.

Kind of like the 3x Feron CDD compared to all the others. The res scales up to about 1.8x it's actual res.

Lots of porn films are shot on the VX2000. I'd go with that myself if I had the £££. Looks great and is very popular. BUT all 3 of the cameras you mentioned are very popular themselves.

So what are you going to go with?!

I have a PC120E myself

Koing

Hey,
I noticed that a lot of porns are made with the vx2000... I mean, I've done research and the research points to such findings... I think I'm going with the dv953... I've found some samples and, while the low light quality is pretty terrible, the camera is basically better than the trv950 with studio lights... My dream camera is still the gl2/vx2k but I just can't afford it... The dv953 is very nice because it has both a frame/film mode (like the xl1(s) ) and a true anamorphic 16:9 mode (no pixels are lost)... The 16:9 footage shot on the dv953 looks significantly better than similar footage on every camera other than the pd150 and the dvx100a... I know you guys are saying that I should steal/save/etc. for the dvx100 but it's just not practical... I still need to buy some accessories and I can get Magic Bullet, a very high quality interlaced to 24p post production package, for only $300 (student price)... Sure, it's not the same thing as a dvx100a but the output is VERY impressive... I'm still thinking about what to get so I'm still up for any suggestions, but the dv953 for >$1,000 seems like a steal...

 

[Falloutboy]

if you can wait a few mounths pannasonic is releaseing the GS400 (will replace the DV953) should be a real nice camera for about 1200. if you need to buy today on the lowend get a DV953 (or GS100 imported from japan if you don't mind foreign menu's) that will run you under a grand. if you can spend more get either a DVC 80 or a GL2 and if you have 3 grand get a DVX100

 

[Kanalua]

if you are going to be shooting under pro light conditions and need a camera on a budget, get a Panaonic PV-GS 70. If you look around y can get it from Circuit City for around $500. I just picked one up and it's great, especially under well lit situations.

 

[slackerinabox]

I decided that low light performance was important to me so I got the Canon GL-2 - $1800 shipped from a reliable dealer... Yes, I'm excited!