Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

What level of camcorder do i need to make ski film quality video?

profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
ive seen sony vx2000 video and its sick. do level one and the cameras filming tbc more expensive? ive got a canon optura 10 which is pretty sweet but i dont think it would cut it for ski fillm quality foottage.
any suggestions?
Dec 28 2011 3:08PM
0 0
profile picture
bakedpow
Posts: 8770 - Karma: 10,467
Delete your account to newschoolers and never come back.
Dec 28 2011 3:12PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
are you serious? vx2000s are SD cameras from like a decade ago and optura 10s are equally old 1 chip SD cameras, and youre asking if the cameras pros use are more expensive? ...yes, theyre more expensive. and TBC was shot on 16mm film (35 for the intro i think)

pros use much nicer HD cams nowadays (some nicer than others..........)
Dec 28 2011 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
steezy69
Posts: 251 - Karma: 184
you need a red camera... minimum.
Dec 28 2011 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
bdowning
Posts: 1630 - Karma: 243
I heard thats all mountain are allowing these days. They won't even let you ride without one. They're super cheap though, Wal-Mart has plenty in stock.
Dec 28 2011 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
steezy69
Posts: 251 - Karma: 184
some good deals buy one get one half off at costco
Dec 28 2011 3:23PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
not to be mr serious but this guy's joking.. in case anyone reading this is actually trying to learn haha. the REDs are some of the few cameras that can truly replicate the film look well enough to replace them already though IMO. i think level 1's street shots look great but their backcountry shots look like a bunch of 1s and 0s to me, not as pleasing to the eye as other cameras
Dec 28 2011 3:30PM
0 0
profile picture
PON3
Posts: 3817 - Karma: 783
level 9000
Dec 28 2011 3:32PM
0 0
profile picture
moms_favorite
Posts: 282 - Karma: 72
ur soooo kewl
Dec 28 2011 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
selling a vx2100, message me if you're interested
Dec 28 2011 4:52PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
If your talking about major ski film companies such as level 1 and PBP, a lot of their cameras include sony ex1's, sony fs100's, Canon 7D's and 5D mkII, Panasonic HVX200, HMC150. Some companies with a huge budget use red EPIC's, Phantom Flex's, Arri's, and Cineflex's.
Dec 28 2011 4:56PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
This is quite possibly the stupidest thread I've ever seen on M&A.


Ok now I'm done feeding the troll
Dec 28 2011 4:56PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
including PBP now :)
Dec 28 2011 6:00PM
0 0
profile picture
[evan]
Posts: 5628 - Karma: 117
You film for PBP don't you.....lucky bastard
Dec 28 2011 6:11PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
i did some last year, but i haven't done anything for them this year.


the epic is charlie's though. i've only gotten my hands on it once and i was just taking a look at it, didn't get to shoot or anything.
Dec 28 2011 6:17PM
0 0
profile picture
cwillygood
Posts: 6831 - Karma: 1,829
Why are reds so much better? Sorry for the noob question just never really looked into them..seeing how there 10,000 + alot haha
Dec 28 2011 10:22PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
i think the main reason people like them is because of the raw codec. Also, they have a very high frame rate compared to other video cameras.


Theres obviously more to it. I know a few people on here are getting a scarlet. they will have a much more educated answer then me.
Dec 28 2011 10:38PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
as has been said, the red raw codec (and the whole red workflow in general), very high resolutions, high frame rates, built like a tank, and you can upgrade the sensor, to name a few reasons
Dec 28 2011 10:48PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
There is circulating myth that in order to make an aesthetically pleasing video, you need a big and expensive camera. It isn't true.

A video camera is literally an instrument. That is, it is an extension of the hand. Like a cello, without the player there is no music; it's only a lifeless box of wood. The same is true for video cameras; you turn it on and it captures light, but the magic comes from the videographer. Expensive camera equipment certainly helps (to the point where we may consider them needs), but at the core of quality video is an intangible quality that only you can provide. A skilled videographer can make beautiful images out of a $500 camera just as he can with a $10,000 camera. For example, the RED ONE costs $20k+ and a majority of the footage I've seen from it looks awful. On the other hand, I've seen gorgeous images from $500 cameras.

Forget what film companies use. While TBC was shot with a slew of amazing cameras (35mm, 16mm, super8, and miniDV), Shanghai Six was shot with a camera that's crappy by today's standards (Sony FX1) yet they still managed to pull of nice images. What works for you is personal, and is often wildly different from what others may feel comfortable with.

That said I suggest a basic tapeless HD camcorder (Canon makes a tapeless version of the HV40 but its name escapes me). Other than that, all you need are cards, filters, and a tripod. This is a basic set up and will enable you to learn the basics and get a feel for what you like and don't like, as well as develop your own style.
Dec 29 2011 5:44AM
0 0
profile picture
cwillygood
Posts: 6831 - Karma: 1,829
Nice thanks
Dec 29 2011 8:08AM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
is the which is the best you can get for around 2000?
Dec 30 2011 5:36AM
0 0
profile picture
john.stossel
Posts: 943 - Karma: 5
does anybody know if the follow cams used in mind the gap for tj schillers segment are as good as gopros are today?
Dec 30 2011 5:47AM
0 0
profile picture
benJAHmin
Posts: 519 - Karma: 20
M&A is not like other forums, you can learn just about anything without even posting, so my advice before you continue is to read and keep reading.
Dec 30 2011 8:17AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Looks like a crappy video camera...likely a VX2000. A GoPro would be way better as far as fisheyes go. For anything else, you should get a camcorder.
Dec 30 2011 2:30PM
0 0
profile picture
CoachG
Posts: 2546 - Karma: 448
Film look, and RED look are not comparable. Film has grain.
Dec 30 2011 3:50PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Can't you add it artificially? People replicate the film look pretty decently with digital cameras for photography.
Dec 30 2011 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Yes, but it still doesn't look the same. It's usually fairly easy to tell when someone has applied filters/levels adjustments to digital in order to mimic film stock.
Dec 30 2011 4:00PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
i didnt say it looked exactly like film, i still prefer film to anything but the RED is the best IMO so far.. i mean, some top level hollywood films are using it
Dec 30 2011 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
ARRI Alexa puts out a way better image than the RED EPIC, even if it is a quarter of the resolution. Plus, it has real buttons/knobs instead of using the annoying REDmote. The reason it is being used so much in Hollywood is because it's so cheap, not because it's the best.
Jan 1 2012 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
idk enough about that arri to have an opinion on it. all i said was that the REDs are the only ones used by ski companies that in my opinion replace film well enough..i said that theyre even used in hollywood for epics like the hobbit to point out that they obviously are comparable to film.. don't really see what you guys are trying to argue with me about
Jan 1 2012 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
My point is that it doesn't look like film, nor is it intended to. If Peter Jackson wanted his movie to look like film, he'd shoot it on 35mm. Instead, he's going for a totally digital look that looks, behaves, and feels absolutely nothing like it. He chose the RED EPICs because they're small, (relatively) cheap, and more malleable when it comes to vfx/3D work. I'm not saying they aren't great cameras. I'm saying that just because they're used in Hollywood doesn't mean they're comparable to film. It's simply a different tool with a different look. They're being employed because they are cheap, small, and flexible.
Jan 1 2012 9:05PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
...it looks pretty comparable to film. let's agree to disagree, jeez
Jan 1 2012 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
"Film look" is often unconsciously associated with things unrelated to the format- lighting, focal length, composition, etc. Obtaining the "film look" has little to do with your camera (assuming it has basic functions) and more with lighting, composition, pacing, etc.

I'm saying that these aspects aside, strictly speaking in terms of camera output (dynamic response, color, knee), the RED looks nothing like film. It's gorgeous, yes. But not "film." The ARRI Alexa on the other hand, very much has the look.
Jan 2 2012 6:23AM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
a lot of what you said is true but to claim that obtaining film look "has little do do with your camera" is pretty simply untrue. i really don't see what youre trying to nitpick here, i think i explained what i said pretty well and if we disagree well then great, but in my and a lot of people's opinions RED does a pretty damn good job looking filmic enough
Jan 2 2012 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Anybody who has any idea what they're doing will tell you the same- that it has less to do with the camera and more to do with the person behind it. How come 28 Days Later looked more "filmic" than much of the RED footage floating around the internet, despite being shot on miniDV?
Jan 2 2012 2:03PM
0 0
profile picture
steezy69
Posts: 251 - Karma: 184

you two sound like married couple

oh and..

red is better

Jan 2 2012 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
When did it become a competition?
Jan 2 2012 2:24PM
0 0
profile picture
steezy69
Posts: 251 - Karma: 184
about 10 posts up counting this one
Jan 2 2012 2:38PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
1. you made no argument to back that up, so your statement means nothing and has no credibility. if youre going to say something, at least try to provide an argument along with it. not taking sides here though (don't know enough about arri or red to have a respectable opinion).


2. this is a forum. forums are for discussion and debate. those two are debating about cameras, in the media and arts forum. sounds more like two people using this forum for its intended purpose than an old married couple to me.
Jan 2 2012 2:42PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)