Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Camcorders - Would like some info please.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by undii, May 7, 2007.

  1. Hi, recently (as in 1/2 hr ago) had a thought that I'd like to buy a camcorder soon. Since it looks like we're talking about starting a family more often, I get the feeling we'll be starting one in the next 1-2 years. That is of course if my arm/shoulder heals (good enough) so I can hold the baby etc. Anyway, from my 5 minute research, I came across this http://www.quikshop.com.au/panasonic-vdrd300-p-552.html?osCsid=qt8vi9muo2acjjbl5kto88vuh5

    Have NO idea really as I have never researched camcorders before. Never really wanted one but capturing "priceless moments" of ones child/ren such as first steps and all that, is making me think about buying one. Is anyone able to give pro/cons on the hdd vs miniDV formats? And possibly on the unit I gave the link to above.

    I don't know if I am looking at "too crap" for "nice quality" units, don't want _the best_ but I don't want something I would kick myself for buying as time goes by due to it being below grade for my wants, which I don't know exactly. At moment, I want something that will capture the said "priceless moments" I said earlier, would ideally like to be able to mount it to my bike for "onboard footage". I would also like to take stills, I have a 5 megapixel camera I think. I'll check it tomorrow when I'm not in bed.

    Anyway, any help would be appreciated. And any info given before I start to look into things "deeply" which might save hours/days of wasted effort because I'm looking at stuff that isn't suited for me but I don't know. I guess going to a place like harvey norman (not to buy from the rip off merchants) but just to see how various units feel to use, possibly see playback of footage so I can actually see what I would be getting is probably a good thing. Being on the medical related holiday, I'll start visiting stores this or next week.

    Or do people think I should wait to (a lot) closer to the birth which could be 1-3 years away??? (Who knows, we don't at present) as that would be the main reason for getting the camcorder, I could do without in the meantime if it means far better units are coming out and/or pricing is a lot better. No idea if this is a stable industry or a fluctuating one like the computer. Where one week could mean 20% of savings or inflation or a whole generation of better gear.

    Thanks and once again, any advice/(url) links/information etc is much appreciated. Time for me to get sleep, physio early in morning and pain meds that make me drowsy are kicking in. Thanks! :) *yawn* Night..
  2. Save your money and wait, until you really do need it.

    HDD recorders have far too high a failure rate at the moment, and teh technology usage is far too immature.

    DVD recorder one's are good, but they are the top end of town models and unless you need the expensive media price, and top end features are probably and overkill.

    Digital tape is probably the best bet .. still very good, and around half the price that you linked to for a good model with all teh required and important features.

    So if your impulsive and want it now, get a decent digital tape model for around $400-$500.

    If you can wait, then the HDD and/or DVD models will be more mature and around the $500 area when your ready to buy :)
  3. it all depends on what you are truly going ot use the camera for.
    (and it is best to be honest with yourself ;)
    and how often.
    digital tape is fine but can get annoying if you use the camera lots (lots of tapes , lots of money, lots of time - to capture tapes onto your HDD will require the same time as is recorded on the tape. i've been through $300 worht of tapes, but i use the cam a lot (and i don't reuse the tape).you ever captured 600 hours of footage?... not fun :evil:
    digital tape also has much better image quality for later editing. but is also prone to buggering up...

    if kiddy memories are what you want, go with tape (and a cheaper model) and buy a microphone. god knows why but people always forget the microphone. Sound is everything and for a reasonably decent one you're looking at $250.

    if it is for the bike then forget the mic

    HDD cams will be more user friendly if you jsut want quick and easy... but like mouth says, if the birth is a while away, wait until then, like anything electronic, the future cams will be better than the current ones
  4. Cool, looks like I'll wait til "it's needed" and then I'll look into what's around then. Thanks.
  5. A solid state digital still camera (like what cathar/stewy/FLUX has) will still record decent footage. and it's easy to edit. of course it's not the same quality as tape but it's pretty good to play around with.

    I think that casio (EX S600?) retails for under $400

    The added advantage is you can take nice happy snaps too.

    Like russ said editing hours and hours of tape footage is a pain even just capturing it requires lots of disk sapce.
  6. [quote="im.on.it"
    even just capturing it requires lots of disk sapce.[/quote]

    oh god yeh. how did I forget that point...

    lots of space :cry: :nopity:
  7. Definitely, and it may not live to maturity anyway, as a new digital technology called 'Red One' has just been launched which is higher resolution than 35mm movie film. I have seen a clip of a 12min short by Peter Jackson called "Crossing the Line" shot on 'Red One' cameras and it's truly awesome. Although these are rare and expensive at the moment, being digital they will inevitably plummet in cost, and word in the Movie and TV business is that HD could go the way of Betamax as a shooting format. (but not as a delivery format, e.g. HD TV).
  8. not really, we still use beta cameras and having more resolution and better colour depth, isn't really a huge advantage unless you are planning on making a movie. the space requirements of a 4:4:4 camera are massive. and to edit it effectively you need profesisonal software (and the time to learn how to use it).

    you can buy cheap, brilliant professional 3d software but few people aside from professionals do because the time needed to learn these packages won't change with increased computer speed (hence why special effects are still expensive). likewise, having a 2540p will do nothing for the backyard handycam except to waste a hell of a lot of space and time.

    don't get me wrong, i am super excited by this camera, certainly for the movie industry the 2540p cam is a great thing. but even then the real advent of these cams is 2-3 generations away (for the semi-professional) a decent HD cam still costs AUD$10K the red costs US$17.5 plus perhipherals. Regardless, as you say it would be unlikely that TV manufacturers are going to abandon Hd for anything higher (for a while at least) which means that generic HD cameras will be mass produced whereas super high def cams are more niche..

    the red was showcased about 6-8 months ago, was very cool

  9. The bit I don't. While agreeing with every specific of your case, I must disagree with its conclusion. I am old enough to have seen the very first digital still camera on the market the 'Ikon', I have also seen the first camcorder, and the emergence of HD. In each case exactly the same arguments were presented, not surprising in the first two examples given that 640k was a lot of RAM for a PC at the time, and RS232 was a fast protocol. The point I am making is that we always compare a 'new' technology with contemporary allied technologies. The reality is that no technology is an island, and each will advance to take advantage of the other, storage capacity and transfer rates are increasing rapidly in capability while falling in cost. Back in 1997 I was involved with a company that shot the first Australian TV made doco entirely on HD, (a thing about HMAS Sydney), at the time precisely the arguments you just made about Red were being made about HD, i.e 'it is an exciting technology that will have limited application'......you can now buy it Big W.........
  10. hmm your arguments fall into the 'computer speed' category, in that, "things just get faster" which I do agree... in 5 years time the technology will be consumer ready. companies could create a cheap and crappy camera in 2040p... but i remain doubtful that it would be wholly successful. The argument is not a be-all and end all. just becuase it is possible, doesn't mean it is useful or popular (though perhaps the promise of more resolution will simply fool customers into buying...)

    my 3d example was in some way supposed to explain what i mean, though it was fairly obtuse, so i'll expand...
    5 years ago people were saying that 3d was going ot be commercially obsolete because computer speed would make it accessible to the masses hence anybody can do it. reality is, it takes far too long to learn it for it to be an option for the masses. Tv editing is kind of the same. right NOW, computers can handle 2040p, but few use it.

    you also undermine the teething difficulties of HD. the governments introduction of Hd standards destroyed the local post production industry in most aussie cities for many years. and it most definitely has been limited in application until pretty much last year when it became more viable. Many productions are still not being done in HD . and given the european standards still aren't at HD, HD hasn't even arrived yet. hell HD-DVD and Blue ray haven't even been released on a large scale. This week i delivered my short film (which was effectively rendered close to 720p) in betaSP because the is the default format required by TV. (again thoguh, i reiterate. the red will be perfect for Tv/movie production) Few Tvs are pure Hd yet (they are 720p or 1080i)

    perhaps a sideways point would make my argument: we sell dome projection systems for around $13000, but a single consumer wouldn't buy it despite it being eminantly affordable. The main reason being that it has no application for a generic consumer (who the heck wants a giant dome in their lounge room).
    Likewise there is a point where resolution becomes irrelevant for the consumer (nintento Wii is a great example) where the people don't see it as a useful addition. At the point where you actively can't view the resolution the camera records on your tv could be described as that irrelevance boundary. i see a greater demand for better colour space rather than pure resolution. or perhaps i should say "i see a better use in the development of...."

    Still it isn't an opinion i'm wholeheartedly attached to. The marketers appetite for a solid "our product is better" metric, suggests that yes, resolution will be used.

    my point supposed to be that higher than 1080p resolution is really just a waste of a backyard consumers time, spending the money on a good microphone setup and steadycam instead (and maybe a camera course) would make far more of a difference.
  11. :LOL: :LOL:

    i can't miss the irony of the consumer-level Hd cam advertised in the banner ad below

  12. You can be certain it will. Witness cheap Kodak 7Mp still cameras with lenses smaller than a 5cent coin, producing grossly inferior images to a 2.5Mp first generation DSLR with a professional quality 35mm system lens. Because CCD's are cheap and lenses are not..... :roll: :LOL:
  13. if it does stay on resolution(and you are right, it is a persuasive argument) then it will be a shame. really they need to fix the light brackets in each exposure, I can't count the number of times I've had to severly colour correct bad exposures or had interviews interrrupted becuase of minor light changes. Simply uppinfg the res just means i have more of my mistakes to look at :/
  14. At least with 'Red' you are shooting and editing in 'RAW' format....
  15. yup... more than anything you need this!

    still total cost of red = 100k (i've been dong the maths) this includes the lenses... and they won't get cheaper. :cry:

    i want one

  16. Me too, especially since Apple now support 'RED' in Final Cut Pro 6. As to the lenses, yes you are right the current cameras probably won't get a whole lot cheaper, but what will happen is that they will sell high-end equipment to the Film Industry themselves, and eventually license the technology to 3rd parties who will produce initially 'Prosumer' cameras, and then Consumer cameras. It's a pattern that repeats over and over again.