Best camcorder for youtube - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 46 Old 03-07-2013, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xfws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrla View Post

Alright, so I made about 900 dollars on my guitar, so I can afford a better camera now... but it doesn't need to be much more expensive if I don't need.

I want good depth of field and very clear. I will be using glidecam like device (does that lessen the jello effect?)

Are there any other recommendations now that I have more to spend? Cheaper is still better, but if I need more expensive to shoot very clear at 360p, then I will.


---t2i-$550 (kit lens is only 3.5 aperture.. is that enough for indoors?)

---Pentax k-01-$400 very good on paper.. but unprofessional videos look very bad on youtube with this so I'm no so sure....

---Gh2 $1000 used (with kit) -here it says pentax is better... but the youtube videos of this look sweet... though spending all 1000 is a little frightening for my first camera and no job.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2-vs-Pentax-K-01-with-40mm-f-2.8-lens

---XH A1- $1300 used (this thing is huge though... that is turn-off, but it also saves me 200-300 for recorder/pre amp)

I still need to sell my ducati, if I do I will spend 3000 on a prosumer video camera. Wanna trade haa?

GH2 used/XH A1 used...you are taking an unnecessary chance. You can buy something new for a lot less. If a used camera is faulty, you will have to spend more money to fix it or even junk it.

Why spend $550 on a used T2i when you can get a new and better camera, the T3i with kit lens and card for $579?

The f3.5 will require lighting indoors. The 1.8 lens I linked for $94 is a fast lens that will give you the blurred DOF and low-light/indoors. The kit lens you can use as extra.

Don't spend too much money on your first camera. You may discover after finally owning one that you weren't as into videography as anticipated.
xfws is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 46 Old 03-07-2013, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfws View Post

...... You may discover after finally owning one that you weren't as into videography as anticipated.
Well said.

Also, as you shoot video, you will learn what your video equipment needs are.
bsprague is offline  
post #33 of 46 Old 03-07-2013, 11:34 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrla View Post

Youtube brings down the quality of the video and most people only view in 240p or 360p, but it supports up to 1080p HD.
Will having a more expensive camera make the quality better on a low 240 or 360p, or will that just make the 720/1080 more clear and better quality? If that is the case, I could just use my Iphone with external mic/recorder.

Today I downloaded the original unaltered video sample files from the $2300.00 Panasonic GH3, the $300 Panasonic LX7 and the $600.00 Olympus E-PL5 from this website https://vimeo.com/user803551/videos

Then I joined the three video samples together in the Apple iMovie program and then uploaded them to Youtube as standard definition files.
Here is the end result and you cannot see hardly any difference in image clarity and sharpness between the three cameras:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDccj0IyE4

So no, an expensive camera won't necessarily make the quality look better when viewed at 360p

You will notice slight differences in image brightness and colors, however. The LX7 image is the brightest. And the E-PL5 has the most pleasing looking colors as is typical of Olympus cameras vs Panasonic.
gtxrla likes this.
SD90 is online now  
post #34 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 04:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gtxrla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
thanks for your help.

I have narrowed it down to 2 now.

T3i with 50mm 1.8

Or

Sony sr11



It's hard to decide... sr11 is $350 (used, is it ok to buy camcorder used more than dslr?), t3i plus 50mm 1.8 ii is $600 (new body and lens)

-sr11 is much cheaper, and I don't even need to buy a memory card, just extra batteries. I saw some people used something to put 50mm on here for good depth of field http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BolN2h7qjjk but I couldn't find the information for that, but it appears that the sr11 has depth of field by itself.
-Does anyone know about the pre-amps on the sr11? I imagine it does not provide phantom power?


Overall I like the video on t3i much more, but I'm not sure if 50mm is enough, I might need to get 2 lenses. How far away would the camera need to be to get a full body shot of somebody, or even 2-3 people standing up with the 50mm? Would being this far affect anything on the video (besides sound)?

Just wanted to get your guys opinion on this, I'm having a tough time deciding...
gtxrla is offline  
post #35 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrla View Post

Just wanted to get your guys opinion on this, I'm having a tough time deciding...

SD90, XFWS, jogiba, ungerman, markr041 and others are giving you opinions. And, you are ignoring them. At least say what it is that you don't like about their suggestions.

If you are trying to get a large consensus that you should buy a "t3i", you are not going to get it here. Nor are you going to get consensus that you should put a 50mm adapter on used camcorder.

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #36 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

... I joined the three video samples together in the Apple iMovie program and then uploaded them to Youtube as standard definition files........

Nice work! Had the shooter panned more slowly or lessened the sweep, the video would have been easier to watch. Some of your earlier examples of YouTube video (like the one of the guy tossing the camera in the air) captured action within the scene rather than try and create it with panning.

You said you uploaded it in SD from iMovie. Have you read the YouTube recommendations! If your SD settings were interlaced, you might get better results if you find a progressive setting, perhaps in other software.

Are you getting closer to your goal of finding how to make YouTube?

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #37 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrla View Post

thanks for your help.

I have narrowed it down to 2 now.

T3i with 50mm 1.8

Or

Sony sr11
Interlaced-only camcorder for YouTube, well, nothing wrong with that if you know how to deinterlace correctly.

I suggest starting your video endeavor with a camera that is always at hand - in your smartphone - and see how it goes from there. Because shooting a video is like 20% of the job, then you have to edit it in a way that other people will watch it, you know, voluntarily.
Ungermann is online now  
post #38 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

Today I downloaded the original unaltered video sample files from the $2300.00 Panasonic GH3, the $300 Panasonic LX7 and the $600.00 Olympus E-PL5 from this website https://vimeo.com/user803551/videos

Then I joined the three video samples together in the Apple iMovie program and then uploaded them to Youtube as standard definition files.
Here is the end result and you cannot see hardly any difference in image clarity and sharpness between the three cameras:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDccj0IyE4

So no, an expensive camera won't necessarily make the quality look better when viewed at 360p

You will notice slight differences in image brightness and colors, however. The LX7 image is the brightest. And the E-PL5 has the most pleasing looking colors as is typical of Olympus cameras vs Panasonic.
The best viewing experience at 360p is an interesting goal. Until now I've not tried to achieve that. Instead, it has been only the highest quality without restriction to viewing speed settings.

I borrowed the same LX7 clip from YouTube and put it in Premier Elements 11 (that runs on both Mac and PC). I used the LX7 clip because SD90 seemed to prefer it.

Next I made a copy of the clip and "cooked" it a little to see if I could get a little more "punch" as SD90 has discussed in other threads how to make 360p video "sharper". Then I made a third copy of the clip and tried to add a little stabilization.

I used Premier Elements to create a file for uploading using two different presets, "YouTube Widescreen SD" and "YouTube Widescreen HD". The HD file was a little more than twice the size.

After YouTube got done I watched both at 360p. The HD seems better and can be watched optionally at 720p.

I think I cooked the second clip too much and don't think adding stabilization helped noticeably.

If you agree that most YouTubes are watched at 360p, you may also agree that it is with a smartphone. I don't have one. So, if you do, do any of my efforts to make "sharper" 360p videos work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZyjNaDDio is the HD preset version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWEQXokO_aQ is the SD version.

(The creator of the video did it for a review at his website. He gives permision to download for personal experimentation, but isn't clear about uploading it again. I have the videos as unlisted so you have to have the link to watch. It is probably only fair that I take them off YouTube in a couple of days.)

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #39 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

If you agree that most YouTubes are watched at 360p, you may also agree that it is with a smartphone.
No and no. Only the crappiest smartphones are 360p, most are either 480 or 540 or 720, and recently 960 and even 1080. My year and a half old smartphone is 800x480. My tablet is 800x720, and YouTube HD videos look great on it.

As for making low-res videos look sharp you do exactly that: downres, than sharpen it up a bit for well-defined outlines, then give it plenty of bitrate to avoid macroblocking.

Camera, light and editing does make a difference, even on YouTube, even at lower resolution. There are plenty of professionally-shot videos that at 480p look far superior to most amateur 720p videos. I would not claim that they look better at 360p though.
gtxrla likes this.
Ungermann is online now  
post #40 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,704
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 59
My Verizon HTC Droid DNA smartphone has a 5" 1080p display that I use to watch youtube videos on.
jogiba is offline  
post #41 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 05:09 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Bill, my delimma is illustrated by the two computer screen shots shown below. The top photo is a beautifully sharp, crisp, bright and vividly colorful
screen shot of video taken with my LX7 in maximum quality high def 1080p60p mode and then saved to my computer desktop in the iMovie program as a
standard def. 960x540 video. The bottom photo shows what happens after I upload this same 960x540 standard def. video to Youtube
and play it at 360p.

As you can see, Youtube degrades the sharpness and crispness, apparently because Youtube plays back
at 360p by default and can't be forced to playback at 480p. Same thing happens if I upload it to Vimeo - sharpness is degraded
to the same extent.

The solution to my delimma could be solved if I could find a way to FORCE Youtube or Vimeo to playback
at 480p, but so far I have not heard of any way to do this. Have you?

SD90 is online now  
post #42 of 46 Old 03-08-2013, 08:25 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gtxrla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I looked at many comparisons for k-01 vs t3i and k-01 seems better http://versusio.com/en/canon-eos-600d-vs-pentax-k-01 , I think that the lenses are cheaper and you can get lots of old ones too etc., but I couldn't get over the fact that if you watch all of the videos on youtube of t3i vs k-01, the t3i is twice as good almost always... I now there are too many variables but the t3i just looks so much better.

There are not enough videos of sr11 to tell about the depth of field, it has shallow depth of field close up for things like flowers, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for that same effect on a person 10-15 feet away., covering more of their body. (can 50mm 1.8 do this good with t3i about 10-15 feet away and get good shallow depth of field outside in daylight?)
gtxrla is offline  
post #43 of 46 Old 03-09-2013, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

No and no. Only the crappiest smartphones are 360p, most are either 480 or 540 or 720, and recently 960 and even 1080. My year and a half old smartphone is 800x480. My tablet is 800x720, and YouTube HD videos look great on it.

As for making low-res videos look sharp you do exactly that: downres, than sharpen it up a bit for well-defined outlines, then give it plenty of bitrate to avoid macroblocking.

Camera, light and editing does make a difference, even on YouTube, even at lower resolution. There are plenty of professionally-shot videos that at 480p look far superior to most amateur 720p videos. I would not claim that they look better at 360p though.

I didn't say it right. What I meant was that maybe 360p would look better on a 5 inch screen than on a 19" laptop 1920x1080p screen or even a 55 inch TV. So, for this project, the premise is that most people in the USA have lower bandwidth internet connections so will choose to watch YouTube at 360p -- even if 720p or 1080p is available.

For the sake of this discussion, relatively few of the 300 million in the US pay for highspeed broadband every month. A relatively larger number have smartphones with data caps on their wireless data packages. And I have no idea how many have 4G yet.

My current connection is pretty crappy. I share a WiFi network with 300 others in an Arizona "RV Resort". If they would quit Skyping their grandkids, my internet life would be better. My back up is a $30 per month 3G Verizon MiFi on roaming with a 3GB cap. Each GB over that is +$10. Streaming from Netflix or Amazon is out of the question.

The concept or goal of best quality at 360p has appeal!

I don't like watching the video I put together at 360p on a 1920x1080 19" screen. If I had a smartphone, would it be more appealing to the eye and mind?

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #44 of 46 Old 03-09-2013, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

Bill, my delimma is illustrated by the two computer screen shots shown below. ...........As you can see, Youtube degrades the sharpness and crispness, .......

The solution to my dilemma could be solved if I could find a way to FORCE Youtube or Vimeo to playbackat 480p, but so far I have not heard of any way to do this. Have you?
I have not found a way to force YouTube or Vimeo to do anything! The only way you are going to force your viewers into higher levels is to distribute your creations on DVDs, Flashdrives or DropBox.

That said, on my screen your two shots are not that different. Both have enough color, definition and picture quality to "tell a story" if the story is interesting. In other words, it is a little like the DVD vs Blu-Ray choice at NetFlix. I pay for the Blu-Ray option, but not all titles are available. When I get a DVD with a great story, it stresses me that I spent all that money on equipment in three different rooms so I could watch Blu-Ray HD! If it is any good, a few minutes in and I've forgotten its a crummy DVD.

I read an article not to long ago about how HD TVs have penetrated most homes in the USA. But, what is odd is that most of the HD TV owners to pay the extra each month for HD content. They are perfectly happy watching lots of SD content on their big HD TVs!

In other words, resolution is not what captures the mind of the potential interested viewer. It is, and always will be, the content.

Keep up with your quest for technical perfection SD90. It is a good goal. But, in the meantime, start making some great story telling video!

Good luck.

Bill

PS: If you haven't, take a look at what Steve Stockman has to say: http://www.stevestockman.com/ If you get any of what he says on his website, buy his book "How to Shoot Video that Doesn't Suck". In fact, it is time for me to re-read my copy. It is all about making a brain, that never included video in its evolution, to pay attention now that video is here.
bsprague is offline  
post #45 of 46 Old 03-09-2013, 09:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
For any video that is 720p or higher, Vimeo defaults to 720p and the uploaded can actually set it to default to 1080p.

As for YouTube, I have a PS Vita that streams 720p videos even though the screen is only 960x544p.. The YouTube app for the PS3 also defaults to 720p I believe.

As for your computer, if you have a very fast connection, see if this will help. http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=91449 . If that doesn't work, theirs always this. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/youtube-high-definition/?src=search . Or my way is basically to choose HD on the video page although it's true that you'd have to do that manually and it's not forced.
Paulo Teixeira is online now  
post #46 of 46 Old 03-09-2013, 01:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

I didn't say it right. What I meant was that maybe 360p would look better on a 5 inch screen than on a 19" laptop 1920x1080p screen or even a 55 inch TV.
Obviously, the smaller the screen the smaller the MPEG blocks, turning into small pixels. Low-res video looks better on a small screen that on a big one, no doubt. But it is not only the resolution. YouTube's 360p videos have only ~500 kbps bitrate, so they still can have macroblocking defects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

So, for this project, the premise is that most people in the USA have lower bandwidth internet connections so will choose to watch YouTube at 360p -- even if 720p or 1080p is available. For the sake of this discussion, relatively few of the 300 million in the US pay for highspeed broadband every month. A relatively larger number have smartphones with data caps on their wireless data packages. And I have no idea how many have 4G yet.

My current connection is pretty crappy. I share a WiFi network with 300 others in an Arizona "RV Resort". If they would quit Skyping their grandkids, my internet life would be better. My back up is a $30 per month 3G Verizon MiFi on roaming with a 3GB cap. Each GB over that is +$10. Streaming from Netflix or Amazon is out of the question.
My current connection is up to 25 Mbit/s download speed ("up to" is important, in the evenings it drops to 15 Mbit/s or even lower), and I pay exorbitant $45/mo for that. No TV. In Europe twice as fast connection is a norm, and many have 100+ Mbit/s connections. But connection speed aside, I did not mean to stream HD video onto a phone. My phone is 3G only, so I don't watch videos through phone network. And my tablet is wi-fi only. I watch videos on both of these devices only via wi-fi, or something that I've downloaded beforehand (I am a happy no-Apple user, so both devices offer full access to their file systems with easy USB upload). At first I thought that a tablet without phone connection is useless, but I use it around my home a lot more than my laptop simply because it turns on immediately, and I can carry it around more easily.

But ultimately it is about overall quality, which goes beyond number of pixels, and includes subject matter, editing and presentation style. I would rather watch this professionally-made video squeezed into 360p, than some amateur 1080p60 in its 1080p glory. Of course I would like having both value and resolution, but of the two I prefer value.

Ungermann is online now  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off