At OSNews we are committed on being geeky. However, "being a geek" does not always constitute a person who just loves technology. There are geeks about literature (who do you think wrote "Shrek"?), and of course, art geeks. This last kind enjoys a new booming lately with the commoditization of HD camcorders. The following editorial includes suggestions on camera choices, video editors and delivery formats, and has HD video samples of hobbyist cameramen that many professionals could be jealous of.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Well, I still can't understand how one would know whether some camera would me Mac/iMovie compatible or not when purchasing. Apple used to have a list which is no longer there and the manufacturers seem to avoid that subject as well.
Could anyone suggest a list of HD cameras that are known to work well with iMovie?
PS Anyone else drooling over RED cameras? http://www.red.com
Member since:2005-06-28
Apple supports all DV, HDV and AVCHD cameras, so there is not a problem of compatibility. That's why standards exist.
As for the RED, it's a nice camera, but it's a pro camera, even Indies can't easily touch it at $25000 (the base costs $17000, but you need extra stuff). The only NLE that supports the RED I think it's FCP so far -- Apple has been an investor to the company too AFAIK.
Member since:
2005-12-15
Member since:2005-06-28
Member since:2005-12-15
I was looking at getting a HD video camera, but opted for a Canon EOS 400D digital SLR. I'm very happy with my purchase but gee I'd love to be able to capture beautiful things in video, particularly reef life. For example, this to me is incredible beautiful footage: http://vimeo.com/360148
You've inspired me.
Edited 2007-11-03 08:56
Member since:2005-06-28
That was the idea around my article, to inspire the geeks around here. 
Yeah, you can wait a bit and get an AVCHD camera when they get better quality (currently, HDV has better quality), or, if you really can't wait, opt for the HV20.
BTW, I hope you clicked through to Vimeo to view the HD version via Flash. And if you login to Vimeo you can also download the original uploaded 720p video which has even higher quality than the 720/24p at just 2mbps that Vimeo re-encodes (it's an inherent limitation of their encoder backend apparently).
Edited 2007-11-03 09:00
Member since:2005-12-15
To be honest it'll be a few years but I'm sure by then the gear that's extremely expensive now will be within reasonable reach.
Plus I'm finding the number of storage options rather difficult to choose from. At the present I see mini-DV to be the best choice (I don't trust mechanical hard disks - seen waaay too many die for seemingly no reason at all), DVDs seems too limiting, storage cards (flash etc) is too small, so really all I can think of is mini-DV. It's been around for a long time, it's tested and to me most reliable.
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:2005-11-11
I guess you've never heard of directors "composing shots" then? Seriously, are you one of those folks who say photography can never be art? While you could make some good arguments towards that point, it's just hard to take seriously.
And OK, so you don't think it's art. Do you really need to come in hear and announce that you don't think it's art and you won't watch it? Isn't that a little petulant?
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-09-27
I agree with re_re, the medium has nothing to do with art. I actually had this discussion with a friend this summer (really, a friend of a friend). She was one of those purist types that feels that art should be done in analog formats. The thing that really surprised me was that she felt that water color paintings were too juvenile and were an inferior medium, even though she conceded that it was a very difficult medium to master.
It seems to me that people who believe that art is dependent on the medium are not artist, but rather technicians. For example, this girl seemed a lot less concerned with getting shots that were emotionally compelling or thought provoking as she was having technically correct photos. She went so far as to tell to hold still so she could get a candid picture of us. Mind-boggling. It was like watching Data read poetry.
I also worked in videography for 3 years. It was blatantly obvious when watching raw footage/edited videos who actually understood and cared about the art of filming/editing, and who felt that filming was just a point and shoot sorta thing. No amount of technical knowledge is able to put feeling into a technically perfect, but otherwise boring/emotionless shot.
Art isn't about mediums, mediums are just a tool of an artist. The concept of medium being an ends unto itself is only a scape-goat for people who lack the vision to see art.
Member since:2005-06-29
A quick look around the internet will find a thriving and very aesthetically pleasing collection of photographs made with "toy" and other inexpensive cameras. A good artist can take the inherent limitations in their tool and use them to advantage.
http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Photography/Techniques_and_Styles/Toy_Came...
Member since:2006-09-15
You might have lots of Photo's but can you actually compose a photo shot?
Many people have cameras but it does not make them artistic photographers. Many don't have a clue about framing, light, subject composition and the lights and that is what differentiates art from happy snaps.
An artist will always be one who transcends the mundane in the field they choose to express themselves in regardless of availability of technology/tools to the masses.
Member since:
2006-01-19
Hi Eugenia,
could you please clarify? I did read the feature list of Final Cut Express (the small print), and it didn't mention AVCHD at all. I have a Sony which captures AVCHD in an MPEG2-TS container format which is not quite standard as it appears (tried to write my own extractor based on an extractor that was written for DVB-T MPEG2-TS packets and noticed some subtle differences). I fully expect Sony Vegas to work with this footage, but are you sure there is a program available for Mac OS X which handles this format?
Second question: Do you know if Sony Vegas avoids to re-encode footage if that's not necessary? With the camera came a small program to watch the footage and it would let you place in/out points to shrink the clips to the portion that you wanted to keep, but it definitely looked like it was re-encoding the clips. What I would expect, is that it only re-encodes the portions that are left from a group of pictures in which you have made a cut, and then goes on to use the original footage from the next keyframe on. Which is of course only possible if you didn't change the video in any other way. But if that's the case, I want the software to work that way. Do you know what Vegas will do?
Thanks & Best regards,
-Stephan
Member since:2005-06-28
Stephan,
FCE does not support AVCHD because it was not updated for a long time. I expect the new version to do so. iMovie '08 does though and FCP too.
As for not re-encoding in .m2t if the footage was not changed, this is a new feature of Vegas Pro 8. The consumer editions don't have this feature yet.
Member since:2006-01-19
Member since:
2006-01-04
Hello Eugenia,
very nice article!
I do not like photography and i think videography might be a thing for me. Butt still i am a videography noob and i had a hard time understanding those fairly new/uncommon acronyms. Maybe linking those to wikipedia or something would help lazy interested readers like me 
( a mouseover thingie would rule )
But awesome article nonetheless ..
Thanks & Best regards,
- Udo -
-- Edit --
P.S.: For people like me:
DSLR = Digital single-lens reflex
AVCHD = Advanced Video Codec High Definition
NLE = Non-linear editing
HDV = high-definition video (i figured that out myself
Edited 2007-11-03 13:43
Member since:
2007-07-31
Member since:2005-09-28
Member since:
2006-04-26
Member since:
2005-07-02
There's actually a good Linux NLE out there, but it is quite expensive:
http://pixelfantastic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
MainActor was all right, but the company has stopped producing it, I think...meanwhile, promising projects such as Diva and Jahshaka seem to have gone dark.
I can't use Cinerella. It's interface has to be the ugliest, most convoluted one ever devised by man (well, barring the old interface for 3DStudioMax), and it kept crashing on me.
The state of NLE on Linux seems to be in stasis at the moment...that's too bad, because that's one area where a solid, fidelized market could be developed.
Member since:2005-06-28
I agree with you, but I must say: developing a GOOD video editor is HARD. It is even harder than developing a modern web browser with all the bells and whistles. Which is why there is no Linux OSS editor today that is even comparable with the cheapest Windows NLE or iMovie. It requires lots of *clueful* developers and years of app maturation. And finding developers who know about video inside out, is not easy to find, not even in the Silicon Valley. They are so few of them that are already employed somewhere, no time for OSS hobbies. KDEnLive seems to trying to be serious, but so far it just doesn't work as well as a DV user would expect.
Member since:
2007-11-03
The New Media Expo focuses on just this subject - independent people who are creating compelling video. We just finished the 3rd Annual event in Southern California and outgrew the facility so we are moving to Las Vegas for the 4th Annual next August 14-16, 2008.
http://www.NewMediaExpo.com
Tim Bourquin, Founder
Member since:
2007-11-03
Member since:
2005-06-30
Good article Eugenia! I actually stopped using tapes a while ago. I always had my laptop with me...and ultimately dumped them to there, so I just cut out the middle-man, and just record straight to uncompressed AVI from the camera as I record. Granted, most of what I do is interviews and b-roll footage though, so I don't have to have the mobility that not being tethered to a machine provides.
Member since:
2005-07-06
This really is a great article. For many years I've been the one in charge of shooting the family get-togethers, gatherings of friends or going out and shooting the aftermath of a big snow storm. But, I never went beyond that, congratulating myself for perfecting my techniques in the above areas, lol. But, this was really inspiring to read and see - thank you!
Member since:
2007-04-06
Eugenia
I'm beginning to feel like some sort of a stalker... I hit OSnews almost on a daily basis, so I've grown used to seeing your name and articles here and there. I am now looking for an HD camera and your articles seem to pop up everywhere... Anyway, I just spent the last 2-3 days looking at your stuff, and having a good read at all your articles... Good stuff... And now after all this HD overdose of the last few days, I hit OSnews, and here you are again! If I am not stalking you, then you must be taking over the Internet
Jokes aside, I understand that you like the JVC GZ-HD7 for its prosumer features, but that besides that you still prefer the HV20 over the HD7, is that correct? I'm 99% certain to go for the HD7, since I don't care about the OIS issue. What I wanted to ask you is about the rolling-shutter effects on the HV20. Doesn't that bother you? For me, that just killed the HV20 altogether, and I am having trouble understanding how the HV20 can become such a big hit with enthusiasts while having such an issue... (I just don't like the idea of having to have my creativity limited by having to be careful when moving the camera around...)
A lot of people seem to be hammering the HD7 for the OIS issue, but besides that, I can't find a problem with it. It has no rolling-shutter issues, it does 1920x1080 MPEG2 encoding, and has heaps of manual control... Yeah hey, maybe the picture quality is 5% worse than the HV20 (which is only 1440x0180 btw), but are people really only looking at that? Isn't control and artistic freedom a lot more important than just plain picture quality? I know the HV20 has lots of manual controls, but it also seems to choose a lot of defaults for you, and that you need to do a few tricks to get around some of its "I know whats best for you" behaviour even when in manual mode.
I feel the HV20 is being treated like some sort of god-sent camera just for its plain image quality while people are blindly forgetting about the rolling shutter issues. I don't know, but it all feels like a teenage-fan-club-lastest-craze thing without too much of a solid foundation other than good looks... Excuse me for perhaps another lame comparison, but I wouldn't like the idea of a brand new car chugging "now and then" when trying to overtake...
Am I overlooking something, or are people just really going hoo-haa over image quality?
Member since:2005-06-28
The HV20 is liked mostly because of its 24p cinematic capabilities, not its image quality (which is better anyway). What I don't like from the JVC model, and I did blog about it a few months ago. Copying/pasting from that blog post:
1. They used 1/5 3CCD, instead of a 2/3 CMOS. While the 3CCD can produce slightly better picture than the CMOS, the CCDs they used are so small, that they produce almost no background blur. In fact, the HD7 produces less background blur than the 1/3 CMOS-based HV20. And because this market I am talking about is an *artist's* market, more background blur is preferable to 5%-10% better picture quality.
2. They included no 24p.
3. They included no "cine mode" gamma/contrast look preset (like the HV20 has).
If you don't care about these things, go ahead and get the HD7. But do read the camcorder shootout on CamcorderInfo.com too where the Everio is going against the HV20 too.
Email me if you have more questions or IM me if you want to discuss it further. I have plenty of free time.
Edited 2007-11-05 20:12
Member since:
2005-11-11
Eugenia wonderful article! I do a lot of photography, and have a web site that a lot of people visit and appreciate. I make slideshows of the pics and the hardest thing for me to find is good music. Where did you find that music you used? It's better than what I've been able to find.
I have been wanting to make video of what I'm capturing in still pics and your article has helped me a LOT! Thank you! JJ
Member since:2005-06-28
Jamendo's CC "BY" music:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/?class=2+3&license_class=cc_standard&...
The "BY" license only requires attribution, nothing else. It's the most liberal of the Creative Commons licenses.
Member since:
2006-07-22
To me, art doesn't say anything about the creator ("artist") but how the receiver (you!) interpretes it.
So if the mass happens to have the same opinion on e.g a video, we all might decide to call it "art" instead of a "video", but in the end art is about you and not the artist.
