SD vs. HD (documentary and on a budget)

[Aheiden]

I'm getting into documentaries and in need of a camera. I've pretty much narrowed it down to a Canon XL2 or Sony FX1000. Of course one is SD and very managable on my budget, while the latter is twice as expensive and HD. Also for the Sony I would need to look into an XLR adapter. I am just starting out and for the time being just doing short form documentaries. Does anyone have any opinions on what camera I should get and why? Also if there are any other cameras I should look into.

Thank you.

[Soopafresh]

Great documentaries have been shot on both. If the subject matter and the presentation is compelling, the visual resolution is forgotten. You don't necessarily need XLR if you use a Zoom H4N recorder and sync the audio in post.

The other part is the fatigue you're going to encounter if you don't use a shoulder mount and tripod. Fit that into your budget as well. There's also a psychological/laziness component you need to consider as you have to be motivated to lug around a heavier camera.

Watch the documentary Dig! on Hulu, an example of a low budget production which was filmed in the 90s using SD resolution and hidden spy cameras. Won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2004.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62673/dig

Director's Notes http://www.directorsnotes.com/2009/10/29/dig-ondi-timoner/

[yoda313]

I don't have any experience planning or shooting something that demanding. I will say if you do go with standard definition be sure to shoot in widescreen if the camera has the option. That should "futureproof" it even its letterboxed though I'm sure more recent standard def cameras are true 16:9.

[Aheiden]

Great documentaries have been shot on both. If the subject matter and the presentation is compelling, the visual resolution is forgotten. You don't necessarily need XLR if you use a Zoom H4N recorder and sync the audio in post.

The other part is the fatigue you're going to encounter if you don't use a shoulder mount and tripod. Fit that into your budget as well. There's also a psychological/laziness component you need to consider as you have to be motivated to lug around a heavier camera.

Watch the documentary Dig! on Hulu, an example of a low budget production which was filmed in the 90s using SD resolution and hidden spy cameras. Won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2004.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62673/dig

Director's Notes http://www.directorsnotes.com/2009/10/29/dig-ondi-timoner/

Thanks for the tips, after looking into past docs I will probably go SD. I checked into the SD150 and 170 but they lack 24p so I will likely settle with a Canon XL2.

Since the XL2 lacks a true viewfinder, does anyone have any suggestions for cheap monitor attachments? Also looking into cheap shotgun mics if anyone has any suggestions for those, unless of course the standard XL2 microphone is already great. Sound is very important to me.

[edDV]

I suggest you mic the talent and/or use a boom. Studies have shown audio is most important for perception of professional video. Next comes lighting.