I was wonderin which cameras are most popular among you fellas. How many of you actually use the XL1 or Xls? Also how much did you guys pay for your cameras? And are you happy with the camera you have? I'm deciding on whether to get an XL1, XL1s or a DVX100 used of course. I've got like 2000 $ to spare, and all of these cameras seem so beautiful. I can't decide. Gettin an absolute film look is not important to me, I just want a soft pretty image... maybe somethin that looks like 16mm.

One more thing, I've heard the XL1s are huge, how large are they? Carryin a big camera around might be pretty sweet.

Where's Harris when you need him?
(Dam Dirty Apes)
He has an XL1s and likes toting it around on his shoulder a lot. I definately think he'd vouch for its "I'm a filmmaker"-type impressive look.

XL1's kick ass, and if you got 5 grand burnin a whole in your pocket, an XL2 is even better. I currently use a Sony DCR-VX2100, got it for 2,150. Used to use an old GL1 till I broke it in a dolly accident. The sony is not bad but I'd like to upgrade to an XL1s.
As far as the size of an XL1s goes, I've never seen one, but I've seen an XL2 and those things are big enough to mount on your shoulder and still give you a run for the money.

XL1's r my choice. all ive ever used. makes me wanna shead a tear thinking about them..............so very beautiful.

Man I want one so bad, but I need money, and a job.

"I can't decide. Gettin an absolute film look is not important to me, I just want a soft pretty image... maybe somethin that looks like 16mm."

Hm. You realize that you could buy a very nice 16mm camera and enough film/processing/transfers for at least 4-5 short films for significantly less than $2000, right?

This is a pretty bad time to purchase a miniDV camera, IMO. The life cycle of miniDV as a prosumer technology is ending and soon the market will move to HD. I would highly recommend waiting 2 years or so to put down several thousand dollars on a video camera. In 2 years an XL2 will probably be worth around $1500-2000. If you still want one at that point buy it then, but buying in to a technology as it's about to be replaced is not a great move.

In response to the question, I mainly shoot on Super 8. I use a Nikon R10 Super Zoom and a Nizo S560. I also have a GL2 which is used for sound recording, pickup shots, and transferring footage, as well as the occasional miniDV project.

I use a Sony PD150. I love it, but I'm selling it and going HD as soon as I can.

I use a Sony DVX-2000

Sony PD-150 is my camera of choice. I love how versatile it is, plus you'll get great picture for the price of the camera.

I'd love to move up to HD though. Maybe I can try to sneak that into my school's communications department budget for next year...

GL2 baby!

go for some ****ty-ass cheap camera, it will force you to make a better film, and will stop anyone who only cares about the "film look" or "professionalism" of your work from making it past the first five minutes of your film (but then again, don't listen to me cause I guess that's what you want).

if you're gonna be shooting around on the street or in little nooks (guerrilla style) then a small digital camera will probably be your best bet. Ebay has a lot of cheap ones. bigger cameras are irritating to carry around (unless you have a car, but I find that riding bikes and filming is where its at...you find better locations) Small and light weight is always a convenience.

You say you don't care much for a film look, I think spending all that cash on an XL-1 or ANYTHING over a thousand dollars would be waste in my opinion. money like that can really come in handy for other things (maybe to purchase other stuff for a movie?) But yeah, lots of small cheap digital cameras have really good quality.

Already have a piece of junk DV camera, I'm ready for somethin better and cooler. I think XL1's are right up my alley. I wanna be able to wield that thing around like some sort of weapon. Ill be the ultimate hardass.

Umm Kyle, gimme some examples of cheap cameras w/ good quality! i want all manual controls too

quote:

Carryin a big camera around might be pretty sweet.

How sweet it is. XL series all the way, Fash. The whole world has a hard-on for the Canon mothership.

quote:

This is a pretty bad time to purchase a miniDV camera, IMO. The life cycle of miniDV as a prosumer technology is ending and soon the market will move to HD.

Although this is true...

quote:

HDK said:
go for some ****ty-ass cheap camera, it will force you to make a better film

How? Better equipment will yield audio which is more clear and video which is closer to real life, thus making the film better. I haven't found that an air of professionalism ever detracts from the quality of a movie.

Dam Dirty Apes!

fashthestampede I use my friend's digital camera, not sure what kind it is though, Im picking it up later tonight and give you some info on it. I'm very pleased with it. I also use an old VHS camera (not sure what kind, hah...only cost me 30 bucks and works great)

Harris, as far as the look goes...what you said doesnt really reflect your films...especially the last. For me all sorts of colors are necessary to make a good film, not just one "look" (seen any of Andrei Tartovsky's work?) But I dont think the camera really makes a difference...most anything can be done to the picture in post....but I dont see any advantages in having a "real" look. As for technicaI...I find that when students have too much access to filmmaking tools it leads them to using those tools in old fashioned ways. Few filmmakers can use good equipment to their advantage...it seems filmmakers get wrapped up in what the film is going to look like (as in, different styles of cinematography) rather than what the film is going to be. I'm not against great cinematograpghy in any way at all (probably one of the only things me and Kane disagree on in film) I'm just not fore pre production on what the shots will look like. Ever seen a Michael Bay film? Particularly Bad Boys (sorry for derailing off onto hollywood movies...) but it seemed like every shot he did was a reflection of his money....(not just the explosions) but how the camera moves too much for iillusionary reasons of tricking us into thinking something important is going on...the "Realness" of film comes from whats happening and how the audience feels/relates/& learns because of what they see. A lot of the time the films use music and cinematograpghy too much to decide for the audience how to feeI (the old tricks that have been used...that familar deja vue of "I know whats going to happen now") I find that rolling the camera from the second you start a film production good things will come just from being free with the camera and experimenting with it to find new ways of presentation.

hmmm...maybe me and Kane share the same view afterall?

*some edits*

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kyle Johnson,

quote:

quote:
HDK said:
go for some ****ty-ass cheap camera, it will force you to make a better film

How? Better equipment will yield audio which is more clear and video which is closer to real life, thus making the film better. I haven't found that an air of professionalism ever detracts from the quality of a movie.

Easy, look at "El Mariachi." It's still Rodriguez's best film, simply because he had to be creative in how he shot it. Desperado, while better looking, was nothing but Mariachi plus a budget minus the creativity, and therefore, I personally felt it was crap. Same goes for all of Rodriguez's other films. The way he made Mariachi forced him to be creative, and none of his other films had that same magic. The logical explanation, or factor is that he didn't have to be creative. All of his other films have suffered this fate. I bet anything had Desperado and Once Upon a Time in Mexico been made the same way Mariachi was, that is to say if Mariachi had never become a big hit and all, they would have been better.

Rodriguez is just as creative in his other films as he was in El Mariachi. Rodriguez didnt have a big budget for Desperado, so he still had to be 'creative' and do heavy planning etc. It's not like he just sat back and told everyone what to do. Rodriguez is very hands on with everything... I'd say he's a lot more creative than he was in El Mariachi. I mean he not only edits and shoots his own movies but he scores them too. I dont know what you thought about Sin City, you know, but I suggest you read the making of it. It's really interesting and Rodriguez did a lot of hard work just as he did w/ El mariachi.
Imo Mariachi is one of his worst. The script was very amateurish and immature, but a lot of people didn't notice that cuz it was in Spanish. I mean the bad guy's name was Booger!(when translated)

I loved Desperado for its style, action, nudity, blood & guts, AND creativity. How can you not like it! With the knife throwin hitman, missile launchin guitar case guy, machine gun guitar case guy! Some of the coolest action scenes ever imo. the bar gun battle was classic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FashtheStampede,

quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:
go for some ****ty-ass cheap camera, it will force you to make a better film, and will stop anyone who only cares about the "film look" or "professionalism" of your work from making it past the first five minutes of your film (but then again, don't listen to me cause I guess that's what you want).

Well, I'm going to go ahead and take your advice of not listening to you, because I think your attitude is pretty bitter and negative and it seems like you're basing this statement on your own aspiration to sound rebellious and anti-conformist rather than logical.

Since film is a visual format, presentation is extremely important. The point of a clear image is not only to look professional; more importantly, it's to make your film easier and more pleasant to watch. Mostly because the human eye creates a pretty clear image, so the closer you get to that, the more realistic and believable the film will be in the viewer's subconscious. I care about a lot more than the presentation and visual quality of a film, but I will say that I am less likely to watch a film that looks like crap, because to me it's less enjoyable and also tells me that the filmmaker doesn't care about how he presents his work, which is a problem to me. "Filmmakers" with that kind of mentality should be working in a non-visual medium, like writing. Anyone who doesn't care about the visual quality of their work like that has no business with a camera.

quote:

Kyle Johnson said:
Harris, as far as the look goes...what you said doesnt really reflect your films...especially the last.

Argumentum ad hominem, man.

quote:

HDK said:
Easy, look at "El Mariachi." It's still Rodriguez's best film, simply because he had to be creative in how he shot it.

El Mariachi is better than Desperado and Once Upon a Time in Mexico because of its superior story. The cinematography is lame, and plenty of the edits seem unnatural, and that's precisely because of the low production values. Combine the story of the first with the budget of the last and you've got a great action picture; instead, we have three mediocre ones, for different reasons.

I don't see why professionalism necessarily overshadows creativity. When I was first playing around with my Xl1s, I immediately noticed what an improvement the picture was over that of the last single CCD camera I had. The fist thing I thought was, "A picture this good deserves a story equally as good." True story. Really. Then I sold my soul to the devil.

Sorry if I derailed this thread. Fash, I'd go with an XL1 or XL1s if I were you. OR I'd wait a year for a worthy HD prosumer cam.

Dam Dirty Apes!

Nicely said, JW.