Best 24fps Camcorder Under 2000 HDR-FX1 Or Canon XL2?
HDR-FX1 or Canon XL2? - best 24fps camcorder under 2000
I want to make independent short films and am having trouble deciding on a camcorder. What is the best in simple words?
In addition, permitted 24fps recordings are the most "Hollywood" in the search for quality?
|
2 comments:
Good question. It is a difficult decision. The Sony FX1 is a great prosumer camera, with the HD, while the XL2 only standard-definition shoots. Thus, the FX1 sharper images and XL2. However, HD is not everything. It is difficult to modify, reproduce, on a TV, and you need more memory.
From the perspective of a filmmaker, I am totally with the XL2 for 3 reasons:
1) for the 24P film look
2) XLR microphone inputs for connecting micro-Pro
3) Zoom lenses for additional options on the length and depth of field
If you plan to more formal documentation, weddings, news, or even family vacations, go to start with the FX1. If your goal is to art, movies, style short, or even become independent feature films, go with the XL2. The XL2, although the camera has SD has been used in several independent films of long duration. The main reason is that the XL2 has a 24p mode. 24p, progressive scan, or 24 you have the option of recording on film-style progressive 24 frames per second, rather than limited to 30 FRAMonths per second interlaced (30i), the tougher, digital video is clear.
With 24p is not the film does not exactly look like film, but it's close. 24p replicates the softness of the height of 35mm film, and simulation of trends in cinema, such as cereals and lightning. However, it takes up the narrow depth of field to get into the movie. With 1 / 3 "CCD depth of field that is big enough, is a huge part of the image is sharp. To simulate a narrow depth of field, the CCD could be expanded to help. But one can only image sensors in the largest TV Pro ENG cameras or the cheapest Sony EX1, which is still $ 6000.
Another more practical option of a 35mm adapter like the Letus Extreme or receive Redrockmicro. These devices range from approximately $ 1,000 and you close with your camera. Adapters allow mounting of a variety of targets of 35 mm photographs (which is pretty cheap now) in the camera, what a depth of field much closer. I Redrock, Redrock, and is probably the most famous, but they have 2 problems:
1) The picture loses a lot of light.
2) The picture is reversed. However, you can roll up in post-production (or the film with the camera on his head, but it's a bit silly) http://redrockmicro.com/
Litus, I do not know about most, but apparently no adapter litus lose so much light and the image is so invested, that his right-side up. It costs a little more http://www.letusdirect.com/
Second, there are XLR microphones. Sometimes the audio quality as more important than the image quality and the XLR microphone inputs for microphones, so much better than the fragile mini-stereo inputs, such as the FX1. One way around this, if you still want the FX1 is to buy an XLR adapter, which by the BeachTek, practiced by approximately $ 180 range. Not all the mini-stereo microphones are so bad, though. The VideoMic Cabos is decent.
Here are some XLR connectors:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53 ...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33 ...
If you want to skip all the confusion, you can at any time byRed Scarlet 3K camera that comes out in early 2009. That is all for the same price and probably less than U.S. $ 3,000 when released and can be the best camera Less than $ 10,000. First, do not shoot higher in HD, high-definition recordings. It's hard to explain, but it's a nice chart, 3K 1080i HD (as in the FX1) here: http://red.cachefly.net/nab/nab2008.pdf
I do not know, do not know how the red of the film, whether it is XLR microphone inputs to compare, but it is worth looking into further information arises. I know it has more pixels than most cameras, worth several thousand dollars!
http://www.red.com/
Well, that's all. Hope this helps, and I apologize if I really confusing. Well, whatever you decide, good luck and have fun!
Good question. It is a difficult decision. The Sony FX1 is a great prosumer camera, with the HD, while the XL2 only standard-definition shoots. Thus, the FX1 sharper images and XL2. However, HD is not everything. It is difficult to modify, reproduce, on a TV, and you need more memory.
From the perspective of a filmmaker, I am totally with the XL2 for 3 reasons:
1) for the 24P film look
2) XLR microphone inputs for connecting micro-Pro
3) Zoom lenses for additional options on the length and depth of field
If you plan to more formal documentation, weddings, news, or even family vacations, go to start with the FX1. If your goal is to art, movies, style short, or even become independent feature films, go with the XL2. The XL2, although the camera has SD has been used in several independent films of long duration. The main reason is that the XL2 has a 24p mode. 24p, progressive scan, or 24 you have the option of recording on film-style progressive 24 frames per second, rather than limited to 30 FRAMonths per second interlaced (30i), the tougher, digital video is clear.
With 24p is not the film does not exactly look like film, but it's close. 24p replicates the softness of the height of 35mm film, and simulation of trends in cinema, such as cereals and lightning. However, it takes up the narrow depth of field to get into the movie. With 1 / 3 "CCD depth of field that is big enough, is a huge part of the image is sharp. To simulate a narrow depth of field, the CCD could be expanded to help. But one can only image sensors in the largest TV Pro ENG cameras or the cheapest Sony EX1, which is still $ 6000.
Another more practical option of a 35mm adapter like the Letus Extreme or receive Redrockmicro. These devices range from approximately $ 1,000 and you close with your camera. Adapters allow mounting of a variety of targets of 35 mm photographs (which is pretty cheap now) in the camera, what a depth of field much closer. I Redrock, Redrock, and is probably the most famous, but they have 2 problems:
1) The picture loses a lot of light.
2) The picture is reversed. However, you can roll up in post-production (or the film with the camera on his head, but it's a bit silly) http://redrockmicro.com/
Litus, I do not know about most, but apparently no adapter litus lose so much light and the image is so invested, that his right-side up. It costs a little more http://www.letusdirect.com/
Second, there are XLR microphones. Sometimes the audio quality as more important than the image quality and the XLR microphone inputs for microphones, so much better than the fragile mini-stereo inputs, such as the FX1. One way around this, if you still want the FX1 is to buy an XLR adapter, which by the BeachTek, practiced by approximately $ 180 range. Not all the mini-stereo microphones are so bad, though. The VideoMic Cabos is decent.
Here are some XLR connectors:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53 ...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33 ...
If you want to skip all the confusion, you can at any time byRed Scarlet 3K camera that comes out in early 2009. That is all for the same price and probably less than U.S. $ 3,000 when released and can be the best camera Less than $ 10,000. First, do not shoot higher in HD, high-definition recordings. It's hard to explain, but it's a nice chart, 3K 1080i HD (as in the FX1) here: http://red.cachefly.net/nab/nab2008.pdf
I do not know, do not know how the red of the film, whether it is XLR microphone inputs to compare, but it is worth looking into further information arises. I know it has more pixels than most cameras, worth several thousand dollars!
http://www.red.com/
Well, that's all. Hope this helps, and I apologize if I really confusing. Well, whatever you decide, good luck and have fun!
Post a Comment