This is for those out there who might be interested in what equipment I’m using for my documentary. I’ve decided to list some of my equipment for reference only. I don’t claim to be any expert; as I’ve said this is my first documentary. I can say, however, that I did a lot of research before purchasing and have been happy with my results (or when I’ve been unhappy with any results it’s been my fault, not the equipment.) You can view the clips I’ve posted and judge for yourself how things look and sound.
Also, this equipment is geared to the low-budget filmmaker. I consider this equipment entry-level with the capability for professional results.
CAMERA
Panasonic DVX100a
First of all, this is NOT a high-definition camera. I bought it 2 years ago and, to be honest, I did not expect the HD revolution to happen so quickly. Nevertheless, I love it, warts and all. It’s most recent version, the DVX100b has a couple significant improvements. This camera also has several significant credits. The following films were shot wholly or in part with the DVX: Murderball (Oscar nominee), Mad Hot Ballroom, Iraq in Fragments (Sundance winner & Oscar nominee), Lonesome Jim, November (cinematography prize - Sundance), Jackass II, and at least a few others I’ve forgotten.
Pros
- First and foremost - true 24P. This is what made this camera’s reputation. It was the first “prosumer” (i.e. affordable) camera to offer true progressive frame rates that emulate the look of film. This really revolutionized low-budget filmmaking so that video filmmakers weren’t stuck with images that looked like soap operas or the local 6 PM news. If you’ve never used a progressive film camera, there are a few adjustments. One, the “autofocus” works much more slowly. This is less a concern for narrative films, but can result in some lost shots in run-and-gun documentary situations. Second, panning and tilting motions can result in a “stutter effect” if performed too quickly. The longer the focal length (the more zoomed-in), the more slowly one needs to pan.
- 2 XLR audio inputs. The audio capabilities of this camera are really great - especially at its price point. Allows two channels for professional audio with built-in phantom power.
- CineGamma. The DVX offers manipulation of the video image with respect to color saturation, “exposure”, contrast, etc. in a manner that allows a more film-like look. It can be customized and manipulated in countless ways and even looks pretty good “out of the box.” Combined with progressive frame rates (24P), this is another reason the DVX became a huge hit with indie filmmakers.
- Tons of Manual Control. White balance, shutter speed, audio levels, gain, neutral density filters, and aperture are all easily accessible allowing for on-the-fly adjustments. As stated above, the gamma can also be manipulated for truly customized looks, but these are buried in electronic menus (as they should be.)
- Small Form Factor. Many would consider this a negative, and it certainly can be in some respects (shaky images can be prevalent with light cameras.) I’ll trade having to fight a tendency for shaky images for the lightness and, especially, the less conspicuous nature of this camera. It’s also great when getting into tight spaces or getting close to the action is necessary.
Cons
- Slight audio delay when shooting in 24P! This has been corrected in the newest version the DVX100b, but the original DVX100 and the 100a both have this problem. It makes asking questions of an interview subject maddening when monitoring your sound through headphones. I simply cannot wear headphones and talk at the same time; I’m forced to lift headphones from my ears, ask my question, and then pop the phones back on to monitor the sound of the interview subject. It can be a huge nuisance when your camera’s not on a tripod.
- Build quality is only decent. Don’t get me wrong, this camera is not delicate. It has a magnesium alloy body that is pretty strong. However, it’s not built like a big news-gathering Beta-Cam designed for daily abuse. I’ve never had a problem, but I try to be pretty careful with mine.
- Small 1/3″ CCD’s. While these are better than the 1/4 CCD’s used in cameras such as the GL2, they are still pretty small - much smaller than a frame of 35mm film. As a result, getting shallow depth of field is a challenge. It’s not impossible, but you’re very limited in how you can achieve it. The upside to the small CCD’s is that it’s a pretty good performer in low light.
- It’s not HD! ‘Nuff said…
I wholeheartedly recommend this camera to the low budget filmmaker. At this point, however, I would suggest that anyone seriously consider an HD camera before buying this one. Especially with Canon and Sony offering some affordable tape-based cameras with progressive scan capabilities. The big brother to the DVX, Panasonic’s HVX200 also looks like a great camera, but uses the proprietary P2 digital storage system rather than tape. From all accounts, it seems like a great system, but involves some serious added expenses. The P2 cards themselves are pricey and are limited in their storage capacity. Their data must be transferred to a hard drive - either portable or to your computer. That could cause some obvious problems when doing a documentary with a lot of run-and-gun type image gathering. The JVC tape-based cams look great, too, but are priced way above that of a DVX.
Well, I rattled on more than expected about cameras. Guess I’ll offer some thoughts about sound, lights, and stabilizers in a future post.
