Budget camera?
- Thread starter hailflex
- Start date
You could use it as long as you are putting in the soundtrack separately.
Depending on what you mean by 'focus effect', yes you can do blurs by software.
If you don't already have a video editor, Sony Vegas Studio is great, easy to use and stupid cheap (<$50).
Depending on what you mean by 'focus effect', yes you can do blurs by software.
If you don't already have a video editor, Sony Vegas Studio is great, easy to use and stupid cheap (<$50).
Yeah ill record the audio separately.
Considering for now ill just record the video inside the studio, are there filters/effects that could make it look nicer that the raw footage?
Another question... is there some software that can give the footage some instability as if the camera was being hold by a person and not by a tripod?
Considering for now ill just record the video inside the studio, are there filters/effects that could make it look nicer that the raw footage?
Another question... is there some software that can give the footage some instability as if the camera was being hold by a person and not by a tripod?
chuckduffy
Well-known member
Tim - are you familiar with the camera he is asking about? It doesn't seem likely.
Chili
Site Moderator
I think you can easily find a nice camcorder in your price range. To get shallow depth of focus effect, you would need a camera with manual aperture control. Not sure how well a camcorder will do for that effect even if you can open the aperture all the way. Something you have to test before buying.
If you want the handheld feel then hold the camera with your hand.
Shooting video is very similar to recording music. The better the performance and take, the better the video. Meaning, you have to try to get the shots as close to your end rsult as you can before you press record. Trying to fix a poor take with software is like trying to eq a horrible sounding guitar.
Hth
If you want the handheld feel then hold the camera with your hand.
Shooting video is very similar to recording music. The better the performance and take, the better the video. Meaning, you have to try to get the shots as close to your end rsult as you can before you press record. Trying to fix a poor take with software is like trying to eq a horrible sounding guitar.
Hth
chuckduffy
Well-known member
Is there any decent music video filmed with some recent cell phone, like iPhone 5 or GS3 or CS4?
Or any comparison between cameras within this range?
Thanks
Lots of my friends use the iPhone 5 to shoot HD. If the lighting is right it is pretty damn good.
chuckduffy
Well-known member
I have a gopro and although it has its uses, it is quite limited. Doesn't work well in low light, fixed focus, permanent fisheye. One great use is to clamp it on the headstock and shoot down the neck, or up @ your face as you play, or on your shoe and up, etc.
vladimirsabados
New member
luizfvpereira
New member
If you want shallow depth of field you need lenses to control the aperture. Camcorders get real images but they look kinda flat because everything is in focus. DSLR are great for that but they aren't as good for fast movement recording. I'd suggest you Canon 600D (or also called rebel t3i). Great image quality and you can get that for a very cheap price. Check some reviews of it if you want 
zekthedeadcow
New member
in the sub $500 range, if you have a camera... any camera... I would get lighting. A good reflector kit, stand and reflector holder and sandbags (to keep the stand from falling over) can be had for about $200. and lighting holds it's value a lot longer than a camera will and will provide a much bigger bang per buck. You can have a Red but without lighting it's still going to look like mud.
Shallow depth of field (DoF) is mostly associated with image sensor/film size. and aperature is used for fine tuning... but if you're shooting on a 1/3rd inch sensor it's going to be really hard to get usable DoF. Most fixed lens camcorders are wide angle and therefor try to keep everything in focus. If your built in lens can zoom then you will find that by zooming in (usually all the way) you will get something closer to the DoF you're looking for... plus other pleasing optical effect, such as a flatter image... and other defects... plus the camera will be more susceptable to vibration.
Include a heavy duty fluid head tripod in that pre camera purchase... should be about $300-$500 for a useable one new. I got a used one off ebay for $100 years ago...
Less expensive cameras also suffer from 'rolling shutter' this gets a little technical... there are two general sensor types CCD and CMOS... almost everything is now a CMOS. CMOS camcorders are the ones that suffer from rolling shutter... better ones suffer less... and nice CMOS cameras have global shutter. just google rolling shutter to find out about it. There are ways to avoid or minimize it such as slow panning and avoinding fast movement and rotating objects like fans or propellers.
Shallow depth of field (DoF) is mostly associated with image sensor/film size. and aperature is used for fine tuning... but if you're shooting on a 1/3rd inch sensor it's going to be really hard to get usable DoF. Most fixed lens camcorders are wide angle and therefor try to keep everything in focus. If your built in lens can zoom then you will find that by zooming in (usually all the way) you will get something closer to the DoF you're looking for... plus other pleasing optical effect, such as a flatter image... and other defects... plus the camera will be more susceptable to vibration.
Include a heavy duty fluid head tripod in that pre camera purchase... should be about $300-$500 for a useable one new. I got a used one off ebay for $100 years ago...
Less expensive cameras also suffer from 'rolling shutter' this gets a little technical... there are two general sensor types CCD and CMOS... almost everything is now a CMOS. CMOS camcorders are the ones that suffer from rolling shutter... better ones suffer less... and nice CMOS cameras have global shutter. just google rolling shutter to find out about it. There are ways to avoid or minimize it such as slow panning and avoinding fast movement and rotating objects like fans or propellers.
BradL8068
New member
The go pro does what it does well, but as the other poster said it is limited. So you have two types to look at. Camcorders and DSLRs.
Camcorders can be had used that have very good quality for that price range ( used on ebay like a HFS 100). Auto focus, auto exposure and ok low light quality.
The down side of most camcorders in that price range is they will be very sharp but they will not look like film. They will not have an adjustable depth of field, which makes
some things in focus and some out of focus. A very common look these days. This is a function of the size of the sensor of the camera. It is not easy to put part of a shot out of focus
with software on a moving shot and have it look good. For that more " Film" look with depth of field in the LOW price range you need a DSLR. Problem with these is you have to know
what you are doing, how to operate a camera, all the controls. AND many can only record for 15 minutes or so with out stopping and recording audio isn't easy or good without adaptors.
A cheap DSLR is a cannon T3i. Plan-c get creative and use a smart phone, though some editing software do not like the files from a smart phone.
Hope this helps
Brad
Camcorders can be had used that have very good quality for that price range ( used on ebay like a HFS 100). Auto focus, auto exposure and ok low light quality.
The down side of most camcorders in that price range is they will be very sharp but they will not look like film. They will not have an adjustable depth of field, which makes
some things in focus and some out of focus. A very common look these days. This is a function of the size of the sensor of the camera. It is not easy to put part of a shot out of focus
with software on a moving shot and have it look good. For that more " Film" look with depth of field in the LOW price range you need a DSLR. Problem with these is you have to know
what you are doing, how to operate a camera, all the controls. AND many can only record for 15 minutes or so with out stopping and recording audio isn't easy or good without adaptors.
A cheap DSLR is a cannon T3i. Plan-c get creative and use a smart phone, though some editing software do not like the files from a smart phone.
Hope this helps
Brad
PTravel
Senior Senior Member
You cannot use a GoPro for shooting anything that will look remotely professional except what it is intended for, i.e. unattended video in physically challenging locations. It has a fixed wide-angle lens and precludes getting any depth-of-field effects. Shooting with a cellphone camera is a joke -- you have no real control over the video, which is going to be of relatively poor quality. "HD" refers to resolution as measured by pixels, but says nothing about compression. Cellphones shoot highly compressed video, which results in poor detail, pixelation and digital artifacts.
You can get camcorders in your price range, but these are not designed for artistic shooting, but for recording family events, chasing your kid around, etc. You can get DOF adapters, focus followers and other add-on kludges that will allow for cinema-like shooting, but you'll wind up spending twice what you spent on the camcorder.
Someone mentioned DSLRs that shoot video, which are good options. They provide for DOF effects and there are free firmware add-ons available, e.g. Magic Lantern (for Canon) and CHDK (for Nikon), that let you shoot RAW video, which is necessary for proper grading (matching color and gamma from shot to shot). To use them properly, you have to shoot full manual (no autofocus or autoexposure) and a good tripod with a fluid head is a must. A good tripod/head combo will cost your entire budget.
Finally, though, consider this: Saying, "I want to shoot music videos and have a budget of $400," is like saying, "I want to record albums and have a budget of $400 . . . and know absolutely nothing about music or recording, mixing and mastering audio." Shooting pro-quality video requires a thorough understanding of the hardware and software, lighting and composition, just as producing good home recordings requires a thorough understanding the hardware and software, and such esoteric subjects as mike placement, room treatments, and arcane technical topics like phasing, filters, etc. I've been shooting video as an amateur for around 20 years. I've spent thousands on gear and thousands more on software for editing and post-production. I use mostly semi-pro cameras and spend weeks (and sometimes months) to produce a 3-minute sequence that I think is good enough to put on YouTube. And, I guarantee, though I think my videos are pretty good, no one is going to mistake them for professional production. I've been into home recording even longer, and spent comparable amounts on recording gear, hardware and software. I use home recording to produce "internal demos," i.e. demos to give to friends for feedback but NOT for public consumption. Again, though, for the purpose I use them I think they are very good, no one is going to mistake them for professional production.
It takes a considerable amount of skill and education (not to mention musicianship and artistic talent) to produce pro-quality audio and video. A pro can turn out good work on even the most mediocre gear. However, someone who lacks a pro's skill-set will turn out junk with even the most expensive and elaborate production equipment at his disposal.
I'm not saying this to discourage you from trying to make your own music videos but, rather, to get you to set your expectations appropriately. Your question, alone, is evidence that you know next to nothing about video. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with asking questions (and everything right). Just don't expect to buy something, spend a week or two fooling around with it and come up with something that compares to what you see on MTV.
You're in the right place to learn about home recording -- despite having had a home studio for more than 20 years, I am constantly picking up new and valuable techniques here. If you listen to the work of some of the more highly regarded artists on this site, you'll be amazed (in a good way) by the quality of the work, both as technical recordings and artistic expressions of musical ability.
I'd recommend you visit dvinfo.net, which is the video equivalent of homerecording.com, and learn a bit about video before laying out hard-earned money for gear.
You can get camcorders in your price range, but these are not designed for artistic shooting, but for recording family events, chasing your kid around, etc. You can get DOF adapters, focus followers and other add-on kludges that will allow for cinema-like shooting, but you'll wind up spending twice what you spent on the camcorder.
Someone mentioned DSLRs that shoot video, which are good options. They provide for DOF effects and there are free firmware add-ons available, e.g. Magic Lantern (for Canon) and CHDK (for Nikon), that let you shoot RAW video, which is necessary for proper grading (matching color and gamma from shot to shot). To use them properly, you have to shoot full manual (no autofocus or autoexposure) and a good tripod with a fluid head is a must. A good tripod/head combo will cost your entire budget.
Finally, though, consider this: Saying, "I want to shoot music videos and have a budget of $400," is like saying, "I want to record albums and have a budget of $400 . . . and know absolutely nothing about music or recording, mixing and mastering audio." Shooting pro-quality video requires a thorough understanding of the hardware and software, lighting and composition, just as producing good home recordings requires a thorough understanding the hardware and software, and such esoteric subjects as mike placement, room treatments, and arcane technical topics like phasing, filters, etc. I've been shooting video as an amateur for around 20 years. I've spent thousands on gear and thousands more on software for editing and post-production. I use mostly semi-pro cameras and spend weeks (and sometimes months) to produce a 3-minute sequence that I think is good enough to put on YouTube. And, I guarantee, though I think my videos are pretty good, no one is going to mistake them for professional production. I've been into home recording even longer, and spent comparable amounts on recording gear, hardware and software. I use home recording to produce "internal demos," i.e. demos to give to friends for feedback but NOT for public consumption. Again, though, for the purpose I use them I think they are very good, no one is going to mistake them for professional production.
It takes a considerable amount of skill and education (not to mention musicianship and artistic talent) to produce pro-quality audio and video. A pro can turn out good work on even the most mediocre gear. However, someone who lacks a pro's skill-set will turn out junk with even the most expensive and elaborate production equipment at his disposal.
I'm not saying this to discourage you from trying to make your own music videos but, rather, to get you to set your expectations appropriately. Your question, alone, is evidence that you know next to nothing about video. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with asking questions (and everything right). Just don't expect to buy something, spend a week or two fooling around with it and come up with something that compares to what you see on MTV.
You're in the right place to learn about home recording -- despite having had a home studio for more than 20 years, I am constantly picking up new and valuable techniques here. If you listen to the work of some of the more highly regarded artists on this site, you'll be amazed (in a good way) by the quality of the work, both as technical recordings and artistic expressions of musical ability.
I'd recommend you visit dvinfo.net, which is the video equivalent of homerecording.com, and learn a bit about video before laying out hard-earned money for gear.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
A tip on something I learned about a year ago...\
...Your local Cash Converters can be a goldmine for very good video cameras at super low prices, particularly if you're prepared to haggle a bit. At least at my local shop everything has been tested for operation and they're generally happy to let me fire the camera out and give it a try.
It might be a way to get a camera worth way more than $500 for relatively little money.
...Your local Cash Converters can be a goldmine for very good video cameras at super low prices, particularly if you're prepared to haggle a bit. At least at my local shop everything has been tested for operation and they're generally happy to let me fire the camera out and give it a try.
It might be a way to get a camera worth way more than $500 for relatively little money.
Szabo Samuel
New member
A great handycam is okay too. I am using a canon hf200, and besids its drawbacks, Its great.
PTravel
Senior Senior Member
Oy.
Yeah, it's nice consumer camera. It will not produce anything resembling professional video.
First, it uses relatively high compression -- even at it's "best" setting, it's only generating 17 mbps per second.
More importantly, though, is that it has a CMOS sensor. This explains the drawbacks of CMOS, as opposed to CCD:
To CCD or to CMOS, That is the Question | B&H Photo Video Pro Audio
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Well, 17Mbps isn't all that bad. When you watch standard definition digital TV at home, it's arriving there at around 4Mbps. Most international news backhaul is done at 8 Mbps and Sony squeezed full broadcast quality out of their Beta SX format at 18Mbps--the main thing is having frame by frame compression (i.e. a GOP of 1) to allow accurate editing. If that 17Mbps is MPEG with a Group of Pictures larger than 1, then it's a problem.
However, the CMOS vs. CCD thing will certainly impact quality, particularly in lowish light conditions.
PTravel
Senior Senior Member
That's standard definition. Commercial high def is 25 to 50 mbps.
It's not mpeg, as I recall, but it's still sub 25 mbps.
Yep, as well as for fast moving images. You've mentioned another issue: low light. I have no idea what the sensor size is, but I'm going to bet it's smaller than 1/2" and, of course, it's a single CMOS sensor. Pro cameras are 3CCD and have larger sensors. And we haven't even mentioned lenses.