[Legacy o9]

I am probably in the wrong section here, but didn't really know where to put this.

Anyway I want to shoot short films and my current camcorder, Toshiba Camileo X400, is terrible in low light and for some reason makes strange sounds any time I put an external mic into it.

So I have decided to upgrade, and many people are saying I should go for a SLR as they produce some great video now as well as being brilliant cameras. So I was wondering if anyone knew which it would be best to go for. I am looking at a Nikon D5100 which is around £500 if I do go for an SLR camera.

Preferably I don't want to be spending more than £600.

Thanks

[Soundbox]

I have a digital SLR and have used it for video (Nikon D7000 and D800). Whilst the quality is excellent when using the SLR the filming act is much harder, for instance you really need a tripod or steady mount and holding the camera and looking at the rear screen makes for a wobbly film. Also the zoom action is not supported so well as there is no power zoom (motorised) and doing zooms by hand is jolty and a little awkward.

For everyday filming a HD camcorder from Panasonic or Canon (£500) will get you something decent but the SLR allows you to enjoy photography too and give you shallow depth of field filming that a camcorder can not do.

[Legacy o9]

Thanks for that.

I don't use the zoom as much on my camcorder so I don't think, or hope, that wouldn't be that much of an issue. My gut instinct is to go with a SLR but being an absolute novice to them I worry that I may be in over my head, or pick one that while good on paper isn't for me when I get it.

[grahamlthompson]

Be aware if you plan to shoot using 1080p50 you need a PC with serious grunt to do anything with it.

[Legacy o9]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Be aware if you plan to shoot using 1080p50 you need a PC with serious grunt to do anything with it.

Yeah I've learnt that the hard way, my brand new 27" iMac can't really deal with editing videos while doing anything else.

[evil c]

You don't say whether it's HD or SD video you want. There is a great little bridge camera which isn't widely known, but by all accounts produces the goods on both still and video, the GE X500. You can buy it for under £100.

[iangrad]

Panasonic TZ20 or 30 or a SZ7 produce very good AVCHD video in a lo cost small package that also just happen to be stunning still cameras as well . As others have mentioned a tripod is really required particularly as the are so light weight . I used to love a DSLR but most places I go to now its just to big and out of place so I sold it on that auction site !

[Kodaz]

Originally Posted by Legacy o9

I have decided to upgrade, and many people are saying I should go for a SLR as they produce some great video now as well as being brilliant cameras. So I was wondering if anyone knew which it would be best to go for. I am looking at a Nikon D5100 which is around £500 if I do go for an SLR camera.

We had a very similar question asked in a thread around four months back, where I commented specifically on the D5100 (which I own). Indeed, I'd recommend reading the whole of that thread.

To summarise what I said there, the D5100- and DSLRS in general- have some drawbacks for video use, some of which are specific to that model (lack of 50/60fps shooting and lack of direct control over shutter speed) and some of which are issues with video on DSLRs in general.

Bear in mind that what I said in that post is *not* a criticism of the D5100 for its primary intended purpose as a still camera, only for what is an (arguably oversold) secondary function that could- and should- have been implemented better.

I've heard that the Canon counterpart(s) are better for video. However, I get the impression that video is your main intended use, so my gut instinct is that you should go for a camcorder (i.e. one designed with video use in mind) that supports decent-quality still photos (if you want that too) rather than a still camera that supports video.

(Side note; Given that the entry-level D3200 has replaced the D3100 with its EXSPEED 3 higher-megapixel sensor, one wonders whether the higher-end but older D5100 with its older EXSPEED 2 sensor will be replaced soon as well?)

[Kodaz]

Sorry folks- the URL in my post above is incorrect.

(I have no idea what the deal is, but my link was messed up because something- a malfunctioning text filter?- replaced part of the URL with asterisks, causing the wrong thread to be shown).

Click on the "Are camcorders dead?" search result here to view the correct D5100 / DSLR thread.

[Orbitalzone]

Originally Posted by iangrad

Panasonic TZ20 or 30 or a SZ7 produce very good AVCHD video in a lo cost small package that also just happen to be stunning still cameras as well . As others have mentioned a tripod is really required particularly as the are so light weight . I used to love a DSLR but most places I go to now its just to big and out of place so I sold it on that auction site !

I've got the TZ7 compact Panasonic which does 720P AVCHDlite video recording and my comments are that it does very well for a stills camera but it gives a strobing/jerky effect when panning on or moving objects.... results vary and it is possible to get fairly good results. All the video samples I've seen of this and the later TZ20 and many other brands of lower cost compacts with HD recording all seem to exhibit the same problem on pan shots or movement... while it's not awful it's not what I'd hope if I got a decent HD camcorder or DSLR with HD.

Just my 2p worth...I still love the TZ7 and would get one again (or the 20/30) but HD was the only slight issue for me. And yes, PC with grunt is required for avchd editing but even a 2GHz core2duo can do it with a little patience.

[c4rv]

i've seen footage from a reasonably hi end DSLR of the same event that I shot with a panasonic SD700 and to be honest you can notice the camcorder offers a smoother picture and handles zoom easier. Plus its designed for single handed video shooting.

As for low level video, that is an area where you are going to be spend some decent money regardless of DSLR or camcorder. My SD700 is not bad at indoor shooting but it may not be good enough for what you want to use it for. Best thing is go to a good quality photo shop and try out the equipment you are looking to buy.

[iangrad]

Originally Posted by Orbitalzone

I've got the TZ7 compact Panasonic which does 720P AVCHDlite video recording and my comments are that it does very well for a stills camera but it gives a strobing/jerky effect when panning on or moving objects.... results vary and it is possible to get fairly good results. All the video samples I've seen of this and the later TZ20 and many other brands of lower cost compacts with HD recording all seem to exhibit the same problem on pan shots or movement... while it's not awful it's not what I'd hope if I got a decent HD camcorder or DSLR with HD.

Just my 2p worth...I still love the TZ7 and would get one again (or the 20/30) but HD was the only slight issue for me. And yes, PC with grunt is required for avchd editing but even a 2GHz core2duo can do it with a little patience.

Yes TZ7 is not 100% on video ( still good for the time of launch though ) but in the subsequent TZ10 , 18 , 20 25 and now 30 there have been incremental improvements . Even tz30 cant compete with top end stuff but for price and convenience its fantastic .

[Orbitalzone]

Originally Posted by iangrad

Yes TZ7 is not 100% on video ( still good for the time of launch though ) but in the subsequent TZ10 , 18 , 20 25 and now 30 there have been incremental improvements . Even tz30 cant compete with top end stuff but for price and convenience its fantastic .

OK I may need to look at the 30...... I still highly rate my TZ7 and it was an earlier model with HD recording so can't grumble really.

[Kodaz]

Originally Posted by Orbitalzone

I've got the TZ7 compact Panasonic which does 720P AVCHDlite video recording and my comments are that it does very well for a stills camera but it gives a strobing/jerky effect when panning on or moving objects....

This may be caused by either of two causes (or both).

The first is the frame rate itself. If the camera is shooting at 24 to 30 frames per second (comparable to cinema films) motion will be generally less smooth than with traditional camcorders, which normally use 50 or 60 fps (the standard rate with video).

The second is the shutter speed the camera sets for each of individual frame. The recommendation is (apparently) half of the frame rate so (e.g.) if you're shooting at 25 frames per second, each frame should have an exposure time of 1/50 second. This gives some blurring on fast moving objects... but actually, that's desirable! If the camera automatically chooses too short a frame rate such that each frame has little or no motion blur (e.g. 1/300 second) then ironically the motion looks jerkier(!) This is more likely to happen outside in bright light.

I'd assume that the first problem (shooting at a lower frame rate) would exacerbate the jerkiness caused by the second. This was the problem with my D5100's video.

See discussion in the DSLR thread I mentioned above as well as this Wikipedia article for more details.

[technologist]

and do not forget audio ....

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Kodaz

This may be caused by either of two causes (or both).

The first is the frame rate itself. If the camera is shooting at 24 to 30 frames per second (comparable to cinema films) motion will be generally less smooth than with traditional camcorders, which normally use 50 or 60 fps (the standard rate with video).

The second is the shutter speed the camera sets for each of individual frame. The recommendation is (apparently) half of the frame rate so (e.g.) if you're shooting at 25 frames per second, each frame should have an exposure time of 1/50 second. This gives some blurring on fast moving objects... but actually, that's desirable! If the camera automatically chooses too short a frame rate such that each frame has little or no motion blur (e.g. 1/300 second) then ironically the motion looks jerkier(!) This is more likely to happen outside in bright light.

I'd assume that the first problem (shooting at a lower frame rate) would exacerbate the jerkiness caused by the second. This was the problem with my D5100's video.

See discussion in the DSLR thread I mentioned above as well as this Wikipedia article for more details.

Standard HD video camcorders record 1080i at 25fps. (Either 1440 x 1080 or 1920 x 1080 depending on quality setting), The same as broadcast HD TV. Only the newer and more expensive ones shoot 1080p50 (1080p60 for cameras from NTSC countries). 1080p50 is very difficult to do anything with as it's not a supported blu-ray standard except on the very latest players. (AVCHD Progressive).

[Orbitalzone]

The TZ7 apparently records at 720P /50 but I've read that it does this by doubling up the frames rather than actually recording 50 progressinve frames per sec

THe specs say:
[HD Movie] 1280x720, NTSC Mode: NTSC model: 60p(CCD output is 30p) / PAL model: 50p(CCD output is 25p)

Anyway I don't want to take this thread further off course

[Kodaz]

Warning! This post contains nitpicky technical discussion which probably isn't necessary to answer the original poster's question. Skip it if you like

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Standard HD video camcorders record 1080i at 25fps [..] Only the newer and more expensive ones shoot 1080p50

I appreciate that. However, remember (*) that 1080i50 or 1080i/25 video (**) has an effective temporal resolution- i.e. update rate- of 50 times per second. (***)

The end result is that from the point of view of the issue I was discussing- motion smoothness- even 1080i/25 video does give 50 or 60 "fps" smooth motion. It's just that to keep things simple, I intentionally didn't point out that this meant 50 or 60 *fields* (and not frames) per second.

(*) I'm assuming you already know the basic differences between interlaced and progressive video here.

(*) Apparently different bodies use different terminology, and 1080i50 and 1080i/25 (note the slash) mean the same thing. One implies "50 *fields* per second", the other "25 complete pictures per second".

(**) This is because a moving object will have changed position in the 1/50 second between successive *fields*. Of course, each field only contains half the lines on the screen, but this is less noticeable on a moving object.

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

1080p50 is very difficult to do anything with as it's not a supported blu-ray standard except on the very latest players. (AVCHD Progressive).

As I said above, it was the 50 fps motion fluidity that was relevant, which 1080i provides.

That said, the lack of compatibility shouldn't be that big a deal, as it can be converted to 1080i when rendering your edited video footage.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Kodaz

Warning! That said, the lack of compatibility shouldn't be that big a deal, as it can be converted to 1080i when rendering your edited video footage.

1080p50 converts very poorly to interlaced 25/30 fps footage. If starting with 1080p50 retaining the frame rate and reducing the resolution gives much better results. (720p 1280 x 720 50/60 fps)

[Kodaz]

Again, apologies if this is going offtopic...

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

1080p50 converts very poorly to interlaced 25/30 fps footage.

These are two somewhat different cases. As far as going from 1080p50 to 25 fps (50 fields/sec interlaced) is concerned, what problems have you encountered and what caused them? Is this problem specific to footage from a particular camcorder and/or video software or a general principle?

In theory, this conversion should be straightforward. One takes the lines for each successive (even, odd, even, etc.) field from each source frame, throwing the other half of the lines away. Aside from pre-filtering the source to reduce interlace twitter in the final result, I can't think of any other issues.

OTOH, going from 1080p50 to 30 fps (60 fields/sec) may *well* cause problems- as the frame rates aren't exact multiples- but then, I wasn't suggesting that would be a good idea anyway! If one wanted to do that, starting with 1080p60 would be more appropriate.

[Si_Crewe]

FWIW, I recently watched the movie Act Of Valour and it was interesting to note that it was shot mostly using the Canon EOS 5D DSLR and the results are superb.... even if it didn't help with the plot or acting.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Kodaz

Again, apologies if this is going offtopic...



These are two somewhat different cases. As far as going from 1080p50 to 25 fps (50 fields/sec interlaced) is concerned, what problems have you encountered and what caused them? Is this problem specific to footage from a particular camcorder and/or video software or a general principle?

In theory, this conversion should be straightforward. One takes the lines for each successive (even, odd, even, etc.) field from each source frame, throwing the other half of the lines away. Aside from pre-filtering the source to reduce interlace twitter in the final result, I can't think of any other issues.

OTOH, going from 1080p50 to 30 fps (60 fields/sec) may *well* cause problems- as the frame rates aren't exact multiples- but then, I wasn't suggesting that would be a good idea anyway! If one wanted to do that, starting with 1080p60 would be more appropriate.

It produces noticebally jerky footage especially on tracking shots or when there is rapid movement. 720p50 is way better.

Whatever you use to convert,

I have used After Effects, Sony Vegas, Premiere Pro and Magic Edit Pro. It's a common enough comment on Video Editing Forums. (Try AV Forums). If you want 25 fps it's best to just shoot 1080i.

Incidentally interlacing doesn't quite work how you suggest because the last field of the previous field is displayed with the first field of the next, then the second field of the second frame replaces the last field of the previous effectively doubling the apparent frame rate.

[Kodaz]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

It produces noticebally jerky footage especially on tracking shots or when there is rapid movement.

I think I just realised what the problem may be- there's more than one way to convert 1080p50 to 1080i50 (AKA 1080i/25).

One method is to take (only) the even-numbered lines from frame #1 to create field #1, the odd lines from frame #2 to create field #2, even lines from frame #3 for field #3, odd lines from frame #4 for field #4, etc...

Alternatively, one could take *both* the even and odd-numbered lines from frame #1 (for fields #1 and #2 respectively), then both even and odd lines from frame #3 (for fields #3 and #4), and so on. Even-numbered source frames (e.g. #2 and #4) are ignored completely.

In the first case, we retain *half* the lines from *every* source frame.

In the second case, we retain *all* the lines from frames #1, #3, #5, etc, but frames #2, #4, #6 etc. are ignored completely. That is, it effectively discards 25 out of the 50 source frames per second, giving much coarser motion resolution.

If the software was converting using the second method, this might be why movement in the converted footage appeared less "smooth".

The first method, on the other hand, should give a similar result to natively-shot 1080i50 (1080i/25) interlaced video and comparable smoothness to the source 1080p50 footage.

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

If you want 25 fps it's best to just shoot 1080i.

Yes... but remember that I wasn't actually recommending 1080p50 in the first place. You'd assumed that I meant that, but in fact I was only referring to the 50 *fields* per second temporal resolution that interlaced video gives, so 1080i would be fine.

However, if one *does* want to use 1080p50, it gives you better source footage for future use even if you can't enjoy the full benefit right now.

Also, having a full-frame progressive source means you can avoid the complexities and issues introduced by interlacing during the editing stage. If one converts to interlaced video at the final stage using the *correct* method above, it shouldn't look "juddery".

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Incidentally interlacing doesn't quite work how you suggest because the last field of the previous field is displayed with the first field of the next, then the second field of the second frame replaces the last field of the previous effectively doubling the apparent frame rate.

Perhaps I explained myself badly or you misinterpreted what I was saying, because I certainly wasn't trying to "suggest" otherwise!

On the contrary, that was (in part at least) what I was trying to say anyway...

[grahamlthompson]

Getting more and more confused.

Do you actually have kit that can record 1080i50 (fields/second) and 1080p50 (Frames/Second) ?

You can download 1080p50 clips from the net.

Basically if you have the capability to record and playback 1080p50 then this will possibly produce marginally superior pictures than 1080i provided the extra bitrate required is available. (much larger files), and the camcorders have around the same real time compression capabilty.

Typically a HD camcorder will record 1080i at an average bitrate of around 17Mbps, switching to 1080p50 needs around 22Mbps. Much depends on how advanced the the H264 compression utilised by the camera is.

[Kodaz]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Getting more and more confused.

Yeah, I was probably trying too hard to explain that and getting bogged down in the details. That said, it should be correct if you want to re-read it.

Short version; there are (in theory) two ways to convert 50p footage to interlaced. One should give smoother motion than the other.

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Do you actually have kit that can record 1080i50 (fields/second) and 1080p50 (Frames/Second) ? You can download 1080p50 clips from the net.

No, I don't, but I'd rather shoot my own material if I was comparing anyway.

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Basically if you have the capability to record and playback 1080p50 then this will possibly produce marginally superior pictures than 1080i

Yes, that's broadly what I was saying.

Bear in mind I wasn't originally suggesting that 1080p50 was essential, and nor would I expect to find it on entry-level consumer equipment.

Anyway, enough said, I've certainly played too much of a part in dragging this thread offtopic with technical detail I'd originally tried to avoid.