Making a TV series with a handheld HD camcorder - Can it be done?

[v1ru5]

I'm dreaming of a travel series (i'm leaving on a trip in less than 6 months) which i would record with Canon HF100 or HF10.

What i'm not seeing here?

Sony's version only has 1080i, and canon has 1080p..

I've waded through mountains of posts and information concerning these cameras, but it's still blurry whether a camera like HF100/HF10 can produce good picture for a TV series.

Are there any alternatives for these? I'm travelling for 2-3 yrs so i figure a big camera is out of the question - the size of HF100/HF10 is a real plus for me.

But does it stretch to my usage?

I'd like to give the viewers a crisp view of those turqoise waters and lush rainforests i'm doing into, that's why HD..

-v1

[filmboss80]

Here on our side of the Atlantic, there is a joint US-Canadian series called "Survivorman" which is shot by one man using small prosumer video cameras (I read an article on how it's shot, but forget the exact models of cameras). Also, the movie "Grizzly Man" was scanned to film from mini-dv tape sources (Canon XL-1, I think). So, in theory, it can be done, and maybe the TV networks in your country will be open to your idea. But I think you need to educate yourself on how the footage will be stored, edited, and prepared for distribution. Lenses are as important as anything. "Handheld" does not always make good footage. Research the requirements for final exhibition before you start. If the TV series does not work out, at least you can make money selling good stock video footage. As for 1080i or 1080p, it does not really matter, as long as your visual and story-telling content is very good.

Be realistic in your dreams, educate yourself, and go for it.

[v1ru5]

So there isn't any big NO-NO's?

I'm surprised.

Because for what i gathered from peoples comments and stories, these handheld HD camcorders are just crap - bunch of tech bullshit that doesn't work as it should..

[Soopafresh]

Of course you can. You'll need much more than just the camera - additional lenses, batteries, ways of stabilizing the camera (tripod, etc)

The footage can look pretty good, though.

http://www.vimeo.com/726312

[jagabo]

Keep in mind that "small camera" generally means "small objective lens" and hence lesser performance in low light conditions.

[edDV]

So there isn't any big NO-NO's?

I'm surprised.

Because for what i gathered from peoples comments and stories, these handheld HD camcorders are just crap - bunch of tech bullshit that doesn't work as it should..

For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24. That is why HDV and AVCHD by the way use 1080i. 1080i takes a motion sample at 50 rate vs 24/25.

AVCHD has limitations for editing but in 4 years computers will be faster and software will be better for h.264 direct editing.

The cameras aren't crap. They get better each year. The problem is the inexperienced operator. Understand how the pros do it then try to do better yourself. Learn to stabilize the camera. Learn lighting. Learn exposure. Learn focus, pan and zoom technique. If film transfer is a goal, 24p technique has constraints on camera motion and zoom. And don't forget audio.

You learn all this in a basic film class or in the school of hard knocks.

[stantheman1976]

Here on our side of the Atlantic, there is a joint US-Canadian series called "Survivorman" which is shot by one man using small prosumer video cameras (I read an article on how it's shot, but forget the exact models of cameras). Also, the movie "Grizzly Man" was scanned to film from mini-dv tape sources (Canon XL-1, I think). So, in theory, it can be done, and maybe the TV networks in your country will be open to your idea. But I think you need to educate yourself on how the footage will be stored, edited, and prepared for distribution. Lenses are as important as anything. "Handheld" does not always make good footage. Research the requirements for final exhibition before you start. If the TV series does not work out, at least you can make money selling good stock video footage. As for 1080i or 1080p, it does not really matter, as long as your visual and story-telling content is very good.

Be realistic in your dreams, educate yourself, and go for it.

Les Stroud is who you're thinking about. That was an interview in DV magazine. Excellent read. It gave me a real appreciation for the show knowing what goes into his shots.
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=196603428

[Soopafresh]

Something like the Hague Camcorder Stabilizer might be decent if you're out in the jungle:

http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Camcorder%20Stabilizer%20HCS3.htm

[zoobie]

ditto above
you can make stuff but it comes out much better with the proper equipment
so, your stuff will be inferior to others
at least use a travelling tripod
then maybe you'll get close
to your idea

[filmboss80]

Thank you, Stantheman1976 for the DV magazine link on Les Stroud. (I have hard copy somewhere on the bookshelf, but didn't have time to look through the stacks.) The whole point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that it is possible to make such a series without the most expensive equipment, if one knows what he or she is doing. I echo all the other posters here, and believe it will be a difficult sell to most TV networks. (That's why I suggested going the stock footage route to make money without killing oneself.) Good, sharp, stable images are the key. The recording medium is also important, as one must avoid excessive compression of video data.

Finally, the writing, shooting, and editing of a multi-episode TV series is an extraordinarily grueling, expensive, and time-consuming undertaking at any level. Not entirely impossible; just damn difficult.

Know what's required of you, and what you're getting into, before you commit too much time or money.

[edDV]

Amen

[v1ru5]

For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24.

Why is this?

My logic says that 1080p is superior, because the 1080i sounds like a 1080p but it has been watered down.

How could something be superior that has less information? Imagine if a digital camera would lose half of the pixels from the picture every time you take one. That wouldn't be superior.

But my logic may fail here? But how?

And i reckon with even a little movement, 1080i is said to get the "tearing effect"? And i wouldn't just shoot still objects, so this is a concern for me..

That is why HDV and AVCHD by the way use 1080i. 1080i takes a motion sample at 50 rate vs 24/25.

And this affects what?

Thank you all for your replies..

-v1

[jagabo]

For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24.

Why is this?

Because 1080i gives you 50 (PAL) or 60 (NTSC) different (half) pictures per second rather than 24 (1080p) full pictures. The higher rate makes motions much smoother.

And i reckon with even a little movement, 1080i is said to get the "tearing effect"?

No tearing effect if viewed properly.

[v1ru5]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up!

Then what about the sound?

Is Canons offering any good?

That is: Directional Stereo Microphone DM-100 - Google Search for DM100

[edDV]

For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24.

Why is this?

My logic says that 1080p is superior, because the 1080i sounds like a 1080p but it has been watered down.

How could something be superior that has less information? Imagine if a digital camera would lose half of the pixels from the picture every time you take one. That wouldn't be superior.

But my logic may fail here? But how?

And i reckon with even a little movement, 1080i is said to get the "tearing effect"? And i wouldn't just shoot still objects, so this is a concern for me..

That is why HDV and AVCHD by the way use 1080i. 1080i takes a motion sample at 50 rate vs 24/25.

And this affects what?

Thank you all for your replies..

-v1

Further to Jagabo,
To get equal motion smoothness of 1080i at 720p, one needs to have a camera that shoots double frame rate (e.g. 720p/59.94 fps NTSC or 720p/50 fps PAL). Those camcorders are still very expensive (e.g. $26K Panasonic AJ-HDX900). Double frame rate at 1080p takes a $60K camera.
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&store...odel=AJ-HDX900
This is the type of camera your "pro" competition will be using for a reality TV series.

So the tradeoff to get 1080p resolution is to shoot 24fps or 25fps with half the motion resolution. To shoot at that low a frame rate, special camera stabilization techniques, pan/zoom speeds and exposures are needed. In other words "pro technique" that you learn in film school. Most TV series are shot at 24p but under very controlled technique. 24p cameras need tripods or a very steady hand and limited zoom.

High definition and large screens require a steady camera technique. Typical wild home video pans/zooms become very disturbing on the big screen. Minor exposure flaws become obvious.

Lighting and sound more than camera separate the pros from the novice. Even a cheap camera can look good under pro lighting. Quality sound is key to video being perceived as professional. That means wirless mics on your "talent" and multitrack recording so you can separately equalize and mix down in post. You only use the camcorder mounted microphone for ambient background sound, not for voice.

At a minimum, light your "talent" with a reflector to fill the shadows.

[v1ru5]

Well i'm making the series to the finnish market so i figure i'll get it through... :P

[cyflyer]

Also, the movie "Grizzly Man" was scanned to film from mini-dv tape sources

Wasn't he the guy that got eaten by the bear at the end ? So they recovered the dv tape from the bear's stomach ?
Damn stupid idea if you ask me to go hug a wild grissly bear.

[yoda313]

Also, the movie "Grizzly Man" was scanned to film from mini-dv tape sources

Wasn't he the guy that got eaten by the bear at the end ? So they recovered the dv tape from the bear's stomach ?
Damn stupid idea if you ask me to go hug a wild grissly bear.

Hey that says something for the durability of the dv tape in the field though

[jehill]

"For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24. That is why HDV and AVCHD by the way use 1080i. 1080i takes a motion sample at 50 rate vs 24/25."

I would like to clarify that the sample rate for one complete image of 1080i is 25/30 Hz, not 50/60 Hz. Odd lines are captured in the first frame and even lines in the second frame. The frame rate is 50/60 Hz. Now compare that to 1080 lines scanned consecutively at a 24/25 Hz rate.

[edDV]

"For handheld 1080i is superior to 1080p/24. That is why HDV and AVCHD by the way use 1080i. 1080i takes a motion sample at 50 rate vs 24/25."

I would like to clarify that the sample rate for one complete image of 1080i is 25/30 Hz, not 50/60 Hz. Odd lines are captured in the first frame and even lines in the second frame. The frame rate is 50/60 Hz. Now compare that to 1080 lines scanned consecutively at a 24/25 Hz rate.

The human eye resolves luminance resolution detail only at still of very slow motion rates. Our motion acuity is very developed due to our carnivore hunting and threat survival genetic history. The human eye wants motion detail when something moves not jerky slide shows. Resolution isn't as important as motion rate for following action*.

All this was know in the 1930's. Both the NTSC and PAL analog systems were chosen to be interlace for these reasons. Interlace follows motion at double frame rate (half vertical resolution) but settles into high resolution for stills therefore matching human vision response. When all this was re-evaluated in the 80's-90's, 1080i was chosen once again for the majority of TV broadcasting. 720p was chosen for sports coverage due to high action and need for stop frame analysis.

In a perfect world everything will be shot 1080p/120fps but currently all movies and dramatic TV series are shot 24 fps and sports needs $26-60K cameras to shoot 720p at 60 fps.


* The converse of this is the human eye is disturbed by camera shake or abnormal tilt from handheld cameras. The larger the screen the worse the effect. We interpret camera shake as losing balance (or earthquake?) and this triggers a survival response not relaxation. This may explain the response "I can't watch this" when you play your home videos to neighbors. Getting them drunk first doesn't work. It causes them to puke on your sofa.

[jehill]

Don't ask me where, but I seem to recall that 1080p/24Hz is displayed by scanning the same image 4 times at 96 Hz. Not that its related, but I also recall that light is/was flashed twice through each frame of movie film to eliminate flicker.

[zoobie]

There was a recent movie with so much camera shake, people were throwing up in the theater...
I just saw a horrible travel series obviously shot by first timers on PBS...They paid for a tour, recorded the audio, then simply repeated on camera what they heard on the tour. How they sold their series is beyond me...
Somehow, I don't think you'll have much problem producing a better show...

[edDV]

Don't ask me where, but I seem to recall that 1080p/24Hz is displayed by scanning the same image 4 times at 96 Hz. Not that its related, but I also recall that light is/was flashed twice through each frame of movie film to eliminate flicker.

Since the 1930's 24fps needed 2x repeat in the projector shutter to 48 fps?

4x to 96fps (aka 100) is historic in PAL land.

5x to 119.88 is more recent for Americas HD display.

What projector?

[jagabo]

Don't ask me where, but I seem to recall that 1080p/24Hz is displayed by scanning the same image 4 times at 96 Hz. Not that its related, but I also recall that light is/was flashed twice through each frame of movie film to eliminate flicker.

That reduces flicker but it doesn't make motions more fluid.

[jehill]

Don't ask me where, but I seem to recall that 1080p/24Hz is displayed by scanning the same image 4 times at 96 Hz. Not that its related, but I also recall that light is/was flashed twice through each frame of movie film to eliminate flicker.

Since the 1930's 24fps needed 2x repeat in the projector shutter to 48 fps?

4x to 96fps (aka 100) is historic in PAL land.

5x to 119.88 is more recent for Americas HD display.

What projector?

I'm thinking of the 16 mm projectors used when I was in high school in the late 50s. If the persistence of the human eye doesn't detect flicker at 24 fps, I suspect that 12 fps needed 2x repeat in the projector shutter to produce 24 fps.

What it all boils down to is that 1080i 25/30 Hz contains about the same amount of information as 1080p 24 Hz. The former is perfect for the high persistence CRT sets that were manufactured until recently. The later is perfect for modern digital TVs, one reason being that the need to de-interlace the input to provide a progressive scan is eliminated. By now, I suspect that most TVs store the data for one complete frame of a 1080i input before it is displayed, making it equivalent to 1080p. I also suspect that repeating the same frame 4 or 5 times is required to make the persistence of a digital display equivalent to that of a CRT.

[jagabo]

If the persistence of the human eye doesn't detect flicker at 24 fps

24 fps has a huge amount of flicker. The projector has to hold the film still for a while, switch on the projection lamp (not by literally switching the lamp off and on but by using a spinning wheel with "holes" in it, then switch off the lamp, move the film to the next frame, and start the procedure over again. Projecting at 24 fps would have the frame visible for ~1/48 second, then a black picture for the next 1/48 second, etc. So projectors project each film frame twice to get 48 fps (on 1/96 second, off 1/96 second) which has less flicker. But even at 48 Hz you detect some flicker.

What it all boils down to is that 1080i 25/30 Hz contains about the same amount of information as 1080p 24 Hz. The former is perfect for the high persistence CRT sets that were manufactured until recently. The later is perfect for modern digital TVs

No it's not. Seeing only 24 different frames per second is obviously jerky. And the low 60 Hz refresh leads to flicker at high contrast, sharp, horizontal edges.

By now, I suspect that most TVs store the data for one complete frame of a 1080i input before it is displayed, making it equivalent to 1080p.

They store several frames and (assuming a progressive display) perform some sort of smart deinterlace or inverse telecine. Deinterlaced video will display 60 different pictures per second, IVTC'd film 24 different pictures per second.

also suspect that repeating the same frame 4 or 5 times is required to make the persistence of a digital display equivalent to that of a CRT.

It's not a matter of persistence. An LCD display, in theory, can display a single frame continuously for as long as you want. But in order to increase switching time and to accomodate both 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (24 and 60 Hz) sources they are optimized to run at 60 Hz (NTSC). So they must repeat 24 fps frames 2.5 times. They alternate between displaying frames 2 and 3 times. So in addition to the inherent jerkiness of 24 fps, you get a fast judder. All of this is painfully obvious if you watch a bright, medium speed panning scene. On both modern progressive displays and old interlaced CRT displays.

The new 120 Hz TVs can get rid of the judder by repeating every film frame 5 times. This still leaves the jerkiness of 24 fps. So they can also use smart motion adaptive frame interpolation techniques to display 120 different pictures per second.

[wiseleo]

There was a recent movie with so much camera shake, people were throwing up in the theater...

Argh! Cloverfield... Worse than a rollercoaster! That movie was... well shot like it was shot with a handheld HD camcorder without a tripod. It takes talent to create something of that scale AND sell it!

[jagabo]

MTV music videos started the trend. Then The Blair Witch Project made it fashionable for movies.

[Soopafresh]

24 fps has a huge amount of flicker.

Indeed, it does. You have to pan slowwwwwwly, otherwise flicker flicker flicker.

Check out this clip shot at 25p on a RED camera:
25fps.avi

And the same clip interpolated to 50p:
50fps.avi

It looks better still at 100fps.

[jagabo]

24 fps has a huge amount of flicker.

Indeed, it does. You have to pan slowwwwwwly, otherwise flicker flicker flicker.

Check out this clip shot at 25p on a RED camera:
25fps.avi

That's not flicker, that's (very fast) jerky.

This is 25 fps flicker:

flick25.avi

Your monitor must be running at 50 Hz for that to display correctly.

For those of you running 60 fps refresh, here's 30 fps flicker:

flick30.avi

If your monitor has a very low switching speed (some LCDs) those may appear dim rather than flicker.