Video camera advice

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

I am looking for some advice about video cameras or cameras for video.  Its not for me, I don't know the first thing about recording video yet.  My aunt and uncle who runs a ballet and modern dance classes wants to film some stuff so they can share with their students and friends and use it for promoting ther business.  Because they think I know a bit about tech they asked me if I could help them choose a camera.  I know that Dslrs can be used to record video but I am not sure if it would be in their best interest to go down this road perhaps a real video camera will be better.

 

I read through some other discussions here to see what people had to say about different cameras. Any advice on what models could be nice?  They are willing to spend up to $2000. @ALwin do you have any recommendations for a camera since you know a lot, perhaps you have an idea of what kind of camera might be ideal for them.

 

 

By the way, is this a joke?  I'm still a beginner at photography but even I know that I can do more with raw than jpegs.  I am in love with what can be done with raw and lightroom.

On ‎2016‎-‎03‎-‎26 at 11:26 PM, .spider. said:

Some examples of what you can do with RAW, but a vast majority of the changes could are possible with jpegs too.

 

[Infernal Burrito]

That isn't a joke, a lot of it can be done, but it would sacrifice some quality and look quite a bit worse. Try importing jpeg to Lightroom and see. As for the camera, I would say that as they don't seem to know all that much about them, you should look more at camcorders than DSLRs or other interchangeable lens solutions. DSLRs are primarily designed for photography, hence the mirror, but there are some nice ones that do video as well, specifically from Canon.

 

Some camcorders to look at would be the Sony FDR-AX series and some offerings from Canon like the XA20 (I haven't used them but from what I've seen and read on them, they seem pretty nice.)

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

With raw I can take a photo as black and white in my camera but still keep the color and decide later if I want a black and white photo or color.  If I take a black and white jpeg I can't cnage it to color later.  adjusting hightlighs and shadows sliders with jpeg looks very ugly but with raw there is so much more preserved.

 

even this video about raw vs jpeg shows raw is a lot better

 

 

 

[ALwin]

For the camera, as you said a proper video camera will definitely be more suitable for them.  If you go the DSLR route I foresee two big challenges:

• Dancers tend to move around the dance floor a lot, so trying to keep track of focus manually on a big sensor camera will be a challenge.  Even if the camera can autofocus, it may not perform as you hope it would.
• With DSLRs you will have to add external accessories for recording audio.  This makes the form factor of the camera less user friendly if you want to move the camera around to record from different angles or simply add camera movement into the video.

So a video camera is your best option.

 

You don't really need to spend all $2000, a decent camcorder could be enough.  However, even though the internal mics of a camcorder can be a step up from the internal mics of a DSLR, it might actually be better to have a camera capable of mounting a nice external mic.

 

Just a pure camcorder this might be the camera I recommend:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909792-REG/Canon_8063b002_32GB_VIXIA_HF_G20.html

 

But a bit more advanced, where you can record in 4K and perhaps re-adjust the composition in post.  This camera also captures 1080p60 allowing them to do some slight slow motion.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1194106-REG/jvc_gy_hm170ua_4kcam_compact_professional.html

along with the NTG2 mic.

 

Here is another pure camcorder that records 4K and 1080p120fps for slower slow motion

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211905-REG/sony_fdrax53_b_fdr_ax53_4k_ultra_hd.html

 

Obviously these cameras also have AF systems, however their sensors are smaller so they provide a larger DOF and it will help keep the dancers in that region where image sharpness is acceptable.

 

 

And, yes it is a joke.  JPEG allows for a much narrower margin of error than RAW and because the camera has discarded all that extra data captured by the sensor, a JPEG doesn't retain that much extra info if you want to do some serious editing.  RAW is so much more flexible and easier to work with to make images pop even more and make full use of what the camera is capable of doing.

On 3/30/2016 at 2:28 AM, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

is this a joke?

 

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

12 minutes ago, ALwin said:

For the camera, as you said a proper video camera will definitely be more suitable for them.  If you go the DSLR route I foresee two big challenges:

• Dancers tend to move around the dance floor a lot, so trying to keep track of focus manually on a big sensor camera will be a challenge.  Even if the camera can autofocus, it may not perform as you hope it would.
• With DSLRs you will have to add external accessories for recording audio.  This makes the form factor of the camera less user friendly if you want to move the camera around to record from different angles or simply add camera movement into the video.

So a video camera is your best option.

 

You don't really need to spend all $2000, a decent camcorder could be enough.  However, even though the internal mics of a camcorder can be a step up from the internal mics of a DSLR, it might actually be better to have a camera capable of mounting a nice external mic.

 

Just a pure camcorder this might be the camera I recommend:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909792-REG/Canon_8063b002_32GB_VIXIA_HF_G20.html

 

But a bit more advanced, where you can record in 4K and perhaps re-adjust the composition in post.  This camera also captures 1080p60 allowing them to do some slight slow motion.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1194106-REG/jvc_gy_hm170ua_4kcam_compact_professional.html

along with the NTG2 mic.

 

Here is another pure camcorder that records 4K and 1080p120fps for slower slow motion

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211905-REG/sony_fdrax53_b_fdr_ax53_4k_ultra_hd.html

 

 

 

And, yes it is.

 

Thanks, I will look at those cameras and see what they have to say.

[ALwin]

44 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

snip

 

I sometimes disgree with what Tony Northrup has to say, but this is one of his better videos.

 

JPEG is basically taking your roll of film to Walmart to get it developed and photos printed on 6x4 or whatever size prints you want.  Of course you can scan those printed photos and try to edit/enhance them at home... but there's only so much (or so little) that can be done.

 

RAW is you developing the film yourself and playing around in the darkroom doing a lot of things with the negative.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

13 minutes ago, ALwin said:

JPEG is basically taking your roll of film to Walmart to get it developed and photos printed on 6x4 or whatever size prints you want.

 

RAW is you developing the film yourself and playing around in the darkroom doing a lot of things with the negative.

 LOL this is true.

[nickl]

I have no experience with RAW images, and so I won't comment on that point. (And I honestly don't like the way that the last post with that stuff went. Play nice, people)...

I would think that for someone with not much experience with cameras, as well the somewhat unpredictable nature of dance, I would agree with alwin and say that a DSLR would probably be a mistake...

i'm not sure what specific camera that would be best, so I suppose I've been of little use.

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, nickl said:

 

I would think that for someone with not much experience with cameras, as well the somewhat unpredictable nature of dance, I would agree with alwin and say that a DSLR would probably be a mistake...

 

You're thinking of dancing in a club I guess, ballet and modern dancing involves a bit of choreography, at least in the classroom.

 

This is one of my friends who does modern interpretive dances

https://vimeo.com/117171051

 

[nickl]

I get that, but still manually focusing a DSLR even in a choreographed dance probably would take some practice or skill.

[ALwin]

Just now, nickl said:

I get that, but still manually focusing a DSLR even in a choreographed dance probably would take some practice or skill.

Oh yes, more camera work than an inexperienced camera operator would prefer doing.  It can be done with a bit of training and preparation, and several takes.  But a video camera will make life somewhat easier.

[.spider.]

16 hours ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

 

By the way, is this a joke?

 

Wow I think you are a true expert. 

 

I am having these two images, one image is the edited RAW and the other the edit JPEG.

So I do not know which is which, can you help me?

 

[ShadowCaptain]

18 hours ago, .spider. said:

So I do not know which is which, can you help me?

Pointless comparison since we dont know how "edited" the photo is

the end result of a RAW and JPEG would look the same, its how much information can be recovered and altered

So if that image is very close to how it was shot "in camera" then of course they look the same

[.spider.]

6 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Pointless comparison since we dont know how "edited" the photo is
 

There are links on top of each quote. If you click on it you'll see "how edited" the photo is.

 

 

If you watch these videos you'll see that a vast majority of the changes are possible with jpegs too.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

7 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Pointless comparison since we dont know how "edited" the photo is

the end result of a RAW and JPEG would look the same, its how much information can be recovered and altered

So if that image is very close to how it was shot "in camera" then of course they look the same

I couldn't have said it better.

 

@ALwin From the 3 cameras you listed which 1 would you use? the slow motion recording semes interesting I can imagine a slow motion clips of my aunt dancing can be good

 

The dances will be choreographed in their studio. they want to do some video of my aunt teaching her students and some videos of my aunt dancing.  I don't think they will be doing things that are chaotic or not rehearsed

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

how does the camera record slow motion or is this something that can only be done when the video is edited?

[.spider.]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

I couldn't have said it better.

 

Which means you did not understand what I did in the videos. 

 

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

how does the camera record slow motion or is this something that can only be done when the video is edited?

Cameras are recording frame rates. 

recording fps/playback fps = speed

 

 

On 30.3.2016 at 2:28 AM, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

I'm still a beginner at photography but even I know that I can do more with raw than jpegs.

 

Oh did I say something different? Please quote. 

[ALwin]

On 3/31/2016 at 6:29 PM, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

how does the camera record slow motion or is this something that can only be done when the video is edited?

OK let me first answer this question, then I will go into a bit detail about how I would be filming if your aunt and uncle (hypothetically hired me) to film for them.

 

Most films and videos you see in theaters, DVD/BluRay, on TV are often filmed and played back at the nominal frame rates of 24, 25 or 30.  Let's call these the normal speeds.  If you want to record slowmotion, you can take video recorded at these normal speeds and slow it down in post, but then the software you use to edit has to generate the missing frames or your playback speed becomes jittery like 12fps or something (if you convert a 24fps video to 50% slow motion).

 

Cameras that can record up to 50/60fps keep the videos recorded at those frame rates and you can play them back at 50/60fps.  So for video recorded with said frame rates you need to slow it down in post, say 60fps played back at half speed of 30fps makes the motion in the video half as fast.

 

But for cameras that can record over 60fps, for example 1080p 100/120/150/200, etc. frames per second, the camera doesn't keep the video files on the memory card at those high frame rates.  They are already converting the video to the normal speeds for you. (OK I need to be a bit more precise on this).  If you want to record at such high frame rates, you have to differentiate between video frame rate set for what the camera saves to the memory card and the actual frame rate that the camera is recording.  In most cameras you cannot choose anything besides the following (for 1080p, very few sub-$3000 cameras do 4K high frame rates):

• 1080p24, 25, 30, 50 & 60 (including ones like 23.97, 29.97, etc.)  Cameras usually do not have a setting like 1080p120.  This is for choosing the recording resolution and playback frame rate.
• Then in the camera, if you enable S&Q mode (in Sony cameras) you can select a recording frame rate that is separate from the frame rate that you selected above.
• For example, if I select in my camera 1080p24 and enable S&Q motion to record 120fps, when I take the memory card and play the video file on my computer, the camera has already remapped that 120fps to 24fps play back speed.  No need for me to do anything in post.
• I am not familiar with how other cameras might do this, but I think the steps will be similar for high frame rate recording.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

11 minutes ago, ALwin said:

sniip

Thank you for the detailed explaination.

 

22 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Cameras are recording frame rates. 

recording fps/playback fps = speed

 

this doesn't explain anything

[.spider.]

14 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

 

this doesn't explain anything

Maybe you do not understand it. 

 

36 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Oh did I say something different? Please quote. 

Obviously you did not understand this easy question either. 

[ALwin]

19 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

From the 3 cameras you listed which 1 would you use?

I would be using my own camera of course, which is outside of their budget.  But aside from that, if I had only your aunt and uncle's budget and had to use a camera within that budget range for this project, I may prefer to use another camera. I actually want to recommend two more cameras.

• Sony HXR-NX100: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1156385-REG/sony_hxr_nx100.html
• Sony FDR-AX100: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1022653-REG/sony_fdrax100_b_hdr_ax100_full_hd_handycam.html

I would use either this or the JVC I recommended earlier, and between these two I would use the NX100 because it has a bigger sensor.  Though I've used camcorders before I prefer having a top handle like the ones the NX100 or the JVC has.  Easier to hold the camera for low level shots.  And only these two cameras from (five cameras now) what I have recommend have dual XLR mic inputs.

 

The JVC, NX100 and G60 have similar sensor sizes, smaller than the ones on the NX100 and AX100 which have 1" sensors.

 

The Sony AX53 and AX100 are the only ones that record 1080p120 fps for slower slow motion than what can be achieved with 60fps recording.  I mean 60fps time remapped down to 24fps can produce nice slow motion, but for dance movements I imagine 120fps converted to 24fps would be even better.

 

On second thought, just choose between the FDR AX100 and the HXR NX100.  Forget the other three cameras.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

42 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Oh did I say something different? Please quote. 

you claimed jpegs can be edited just as well as raw.  you know what you said.

 

5 minutes ago, .spider. said:

Maybe you do not understand it. 

 

Obviously you did not understand this easy question either. 

that's why I am asking questions and at least there are some people giving me detailed answers.  you don't have to act like some jerk

[.spider.]

5 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

you claimed jpegs can be edited just as well as raw.  you know what you said.

 

Actually I did say the opposite:

 

 

Quote

 

Yes having the ability to change change the white balance without losses,  12-14bit resolution and demosaicing in post is nice to have. 

BTW: RAW is lossless compressed. 

 

 

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

Strange, some comments seemed to have disappeared.  o well.  I talked to my uncle and they like what you had to say about the cameras @ALwin.  thank you.  I think they have decided to get the Sony NX100 and the microphone you recommended the NT2.  at first I wanted to push them to get the ax100 for the 120fps slow motion but I saw a comment you made in another thread about how increase the frame rates means more lighting is needed.  I don't know if they lights in the studio are enough and they don't want to spend money on buyung more lights. so we checked and saw that 60 fps can also do some nice slow motion.

you have been a great help.

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

snip

You're welcome. And as I said, if you have anymore questions just PM ShadowCaptain, Dredgy or myself.  I work professionally as a freelance DP while Dredgy (maybe also works freelance) and ShadowCaptain has done a lot of research and films stuff for their YouTube channels and other things.  So we have knowledge and experience to help out.  We have real world experience.