do different cameras differ quality?

[emjen]

I have one of those small sony digital8 handycams (dcr-trv240e to be precise) and the picture quality I get is pretty ok. I put a small filter on it and the colors came out better too.

But those really big cameras, like the canon xl1 (which costs about 4000 euros), do they really give a better picture quality? I mean they're still mini-dv, and dv quality is dv quality.

[Gwailofilms]

Oh yes indeedy!

It's all highly nerdy tech stuff (your current cam "sees" the image with one CCD chip, while something like the XL-1 "sees" with three, probably larger, ones), but the up-shot is that if you shoot with both, then run the shots side-by-side (or even edit them into the same piece), you will see the difference. The colour will be brighter and the picture will be more defined & less "noisy".

Personal recommendations include the Canon XM-1 & XM-2 (like the XL-1, but without as many manual controls & no pro-mic input, tho' you can buy an adaptor), which are about ?1500 each (sorry, I can't work in Euros [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) and, if you're feeling flush, the Sony PD-150 which is near-as-dammit TV quality for about ?3000.

Hope any of this rambling helps. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[belovedmonster]

DV is just the format the information is stored on. All that means is that the level of performance of information storage is the same. Same ammount of info can be stored with the same chance of drop outs etc

Of course there is a difference between quality of footage or everyone would buy a ?400 camera and not a ?3000 one.

The size of the CCD chips inside the camera has a huge variation on the quality of the footage as do all the other factors such as the lens. Added to higher quality components giving better quality high end cameras have much more in the way of manual controls, meaning the camera is not only more flexable if you want to do something creative with the footage but also makes the footage better since you can very accurately set the white balance and gammer and such like.

I have the same camera as you and for bang for buck its the best camera to get started with digital film making. Especialy since its D8 and therefore has video quality on par with cameras costing hundreds more.

That said i would love to get a better camera. I look at the beautiful warm skin tones you can get with the high end cameras and it makes me jealous. Especialy since i hang around a camcorder board where its obvious half the people who own these top of the range cameras are rich guys who dont know diddly squat cos they have just spent ?3k on a camera and then ask whether manual exposure is better than auto or whether a tripod is worth buying [img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 27, 2003 06:49 AM: Message edited by: belovedmonster ]</font>

[Gwailofilms]

Originally posted by belovedmonster:
its obvious half the people who own these top of the range cameras are rich guys who dont know diddly squat cos they have just spent ?3k on a camera and then ask whether manual exposure is better than auto or whether a tripod is worth buying

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">GWAILO: "You don't need that PD-150, it's far too heavy and look at all those complicated buttons. Here, I'll swap you for my little Canon. Look it's silver and shiny and fits in your hand."

RICH DUDE: "Uuhhh... Okay."

GWAILO "Yoink!" *legs it* [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Actually, I bought my little ?400 Canon more to use as a capture device as it does DV and analogue in & out and was about ?300 less than buying a miniDV VCR. It's great; I even use it to tape stuff off my Sky box! [img]biggrin.gif[/img]