Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › Camcorder Help – ASAP!!
November 7, 2009 at 10:06 AM #44128mery77Participant
Hello, I want to buy a camcorder to make student films and short home made films. I’m thinking of buying the Sony XR500V (Hard drive + memory disc optional) and the Panasonic TM300 (memory stick).
I know each camera has its adventages and flaws;
The Panasonic has 24p mode, manual Iris which the sony DOES NOT.
But on the other hand some say that the sony beats the Panaonic in quality, friendly to use etc. And also that the Panasonic doesn’t work well throughout time (is this true?)
I know that the Sony Vegas tries to create 24p mode and I’ve seen on some youtube clips that the exposure keeps changing when they did this mode – at least I hope that it’s because of that mode.
Is the 24p mode so important that it’d be a deciding factor?
In your expirience which is better, more friendly to use, better quality, sharpness, better in low light.
In other words, if you were in my shoes which one would you get?
PLEASE HELP ME ASAP – I don’t have much time since my sister is in New York this week (where it’s much cheaper).
November 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM #184956XTR-91Participant
The recording capability of 24p is definitely something I wouldn’t chase,unless I was forced to. Most people say it is to achieve some sort of “film” affect, but really doesn’t come close to making a video “look better”. It’s a nice feature to have, letting in more light at shutter speeds of 1/24. But really, if you want a video to look like film, than use the old 8.5mm (film) stuff itself. In other words, making a video look more better involves taking steps forward – better exposure (possibly a narrower depth of field which pro film cameras have, letting in more light). 24p in my opinion is a step backward when you have 60i (and possibly a 60p) mode available. It’s also a step backward that many prosumer/prosdon’t comprehend.Have youcheckedcamcorderinfo.com? Personally, I’d go with the better performing camcorder in terms of picture quality. Manual aperature (or iris) control really isn’t worth it until you start getting into narrow depths of field where the control is needed. Virtually everything (within 35 feet) is in focus until you start getting into the 35mm converter lens – or the $4,000+ pro camcorders that already have them. Gadgets such as these probably come with iris controls of their own.
The truth about 24p – http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/
November 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM #184957AnonymousInactive
I believe that 24p (24 for frames per second – progressive) is not something that should be the deciding factor in your case. Especially if you’re looking to upload your footage to YouTube.
Does anyone know if YouTube keeps the framerate of the source video uploaded or does it convert all videos uploaded to 24p?
Hey XTR-91 – Great link. That is a good read.
November 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM #184958XTR-91Participant
You’re welcome, and more to add, the true 24p pro shooter has invested countless hours and dollars into software that makes 24p worth its shot. In other words, 24p is a sacrifice to quality in terms of frame rate and should be abandoned. Does it have a better advantage in producing a better picture? Well, shooting 24 frames per second was chosen as a rate for cutting cost, while retaining a “good enough” amount of motion for the time frame. Ever since, 24 frames has been used for decades, which video enthusiasts like to cling to. Reality show enthusiasts don’t see any reason merely because these types of shows are more popular nowadays. Film has many advantages over video – retainment of light, depth of field, and color (the color part is a neutral affect that brings a video closer to looking like film, but has no other advantages). A good set of 35mm conversion lens, color enhancement, and classic pans/dollies advance a video toward getting a good classic film affect, not cutting it back by a limitation.
November 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM #184959composite1Member
These days you only need 24p if it is a critical creative component of your shoot. Since you’re going to YouTube anyway long as you’re shooting with progressive scan mode (the ‘p’ in 24p, 30p, etc.) you’ll be just fine.
Good examples of creative use of 24 frames per second’s ‘juttery’ (to coin XTR’s word) imagery are ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (particularly the Normandy Beach landing sequence) and horror films like ‘The Grudge’. So unless you’ve got some specific look you’re trying to create with your project, you don’t have to pull your hair out with concern over 24p.
I read that article a while back and agree with most of it (I’m not as feverish in my dislike of 24p as jburkhart.) 24p these days is just another framerate ‘flavor’ in a shooter’s arsenal. You’ve still got film purists who still worship at the ancient ‘film altar’ and will not accept the fact that digital video and all its inceptions are here to stay and in some cases rival film in both imagery and cost effectiveness.
Oh and Stephen here’s yet another forum thread that discusses ‘the truth about 24p’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.