Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Cameras and Camcorders › Other Camcorders › Which Camcorder?
August 16, 2006 at 9:19 AM #42548DavidMasonParticipant
I’m in the process of setting up a studio for shooting a talk show; the end productions will only be published on the internet. I’m comfortable with the set and lighting, however, I’m confused on what quality of camcorder I need or for that matter I can get away with.
I’m looking at Mini DV, however, what spec should I be looking at to shoot this at an acceptable level?
Sorry for being so vague. Any help would be appreciated.
August 16, 2006 at 10:22 AM #178606AnonymousInactive
Well, if when you say it will only be published on the Internet you really mean "only", you can probably get away with a $50 webcam that plugs into a PC.
Internet video doesn’t need a lot of quality. You could spend $2000 on a VX-2100 or a GL2, but if you’re not going to distribute the videos via DVD or VHS, there’s not really a point in having all the extras.
If you are going to record on tape (as opposed to directly onto a PC, as many vloggers do) Use MiniDV. It’s a better quality for general applications.
All in all, it really comes down to what you really want. If you really want high quality, drop a couple thousand and get a super nice camera. If you don’t need quality (and for webcasting, quality isn’t quite there yet), you might be better of to buy three or four cheap cameras.
Just keep in mind that the web is growing every day, and connections are getting faster and more stable. If you get cameras with too low of qualiy now, you may very well need to upgrade them in a few years when the Internet is travelling 20-50 times faster, and we can get full resolution (or even hi-def) video in a fast streaming format.
Just food for thought.
August 16, 2006 at 4:45 PM #178607videolabParticipant
I agree with Compusolver in that a better quality cam will be noticeable. Especially if you plan to offer this as a high quality download in a modern codec like h.264. These codecs produce very sharp high quality results and you can most definitly tell a difference. If you are going to stream or especially stream live then a higher quality camera will probably not be noticeable. Just look at some of leo laportes podcasts they shoot some of them with 200000 dollar hd cameras and they definitly look beter than his other podcasts which are shot with XL2s. Then compare those with those shot with consumer cams. You will know which one is which for sure.
August 17, 2006 at 1:15 AM #178608DavidMasonParticipant
Thanks very much for your responses, very helpful.
What we are trying to acheive is a professional look. The set will consist of two people, a presentor and a demostrator. They will be working behind a waist height table demostrating diy products. Quality is important in this equatation because we want to give the viewer the air of professionalism……from a viewing perspective it’s something that could have appeared on TV, however, they’re viewing it on the internet. The fact that it will never appear on the TV is immaterial, the viewers perception is that it’s a slick professional product – hope that makes sense.
I think it’s worth pointing out that we are a media publisher already – we publish magazines. Therefore, we are very comfortable with the other elements of this – we are just very, very new to the video aspect!!!!
I’ve been looking MiniDV cams with 3 x 1/6 CCDs and importantly with a mic in facility/headphones socket. We intend to run an mic over the set to pick up conversation. Hopefully this is heading in the right direction, however, any suggestions on cam models and microphones would be very much appreciated.
August 17, 2006 at 6:33 AM #178609AnonymousInactive
If quality is the name of the game, then I would encourage you not to go with a mere 1/6" 3CCD camera. The smaller your CCD’s, the more light you need, and the less punch your picture will pack.
I’m going to discuss Canon’s line of cameras for moment, because for what you’re looking at, they’re probably your best bet. Sony has a great camera in their VX-2100, but it’s a hair more costly, and it has less features than the Canon. Basically you’re paying more for low-light performance, which you won’t need on a well-lit set.
Anyway, a great camera for you might be the Canon GL-2 It’s packed with features, has manual control on everything, and the CCD’s are a bit beefier. It has a nice look, and you can buy three of them for under $6000.
If you really want an amazing camera, get 5000 of your closest friends together and pick up the XL-2. This camera has everything you’ll ever need, and likely a lot of things you won’t. The CCD’s are even bigger, giving you excellent image and low-light performance (not that you’ll need low-light performance). The downside is that it would cost you over $15,000 to get three cameas, but if you are looking for the best quality, the price tag will be a bit high.
That’s what I can think of off the top of my head. Others here with more advice and insight will no doubt have great suggestions too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.