I’m in the market for a camcorder. Mostly for home movies; capturing the kids’ events, milestones, etc. I typically use Windows Movie Maker to put clips together and occasionally post to You Tube, just to link to them in our family website.
For this type of purpose, is a HD unit worth the money, or would a SD device be sufficient? I see SD camcorders with pretty good reviews in the $200 - $400 range, while good HD ones are more like $600 - $800.
Decent optical zoom is important as I’ll often be out in the crowd at school events trying to get a good shot.
I don’t think such a general question can be answered factually. There are too many variables to say if HD is ‘worth’ it. Quality of the lens itself makes a big difference, as well as other things like low-light performance, sound quality, etc.
I understand that, and I don’t have any specific models to discuss. I suppose I’m just wondering,* in general*, if HD in a camcorder is a feature that should be a definite requirement today for a non-pro, home movie taker. In models of similar build quality, would an SD camcorder with 30x optical zoom (with appropriate image stabilization) be a better choice than and HD model with 5x optical zoom for $200 more?
If there are too many variables to answer this than I understand.
Well, all other things being equal, a frame of HD contains about 4 times as much information as NTSC (standard video). I don’t knnow whether that’s a good answer – twice the price but four times the resolution seems like a good deal.
You might also look into a cost comparison of editing equipment. Or look at the editing functions built into the cameras you end up looking at.
Related question: how does Windows Movie Maker deal with HD recordings? Does it work the same? I assume it runs slower, with more information to work with. And it’s already pretty damn slow.
If I were filming my kids, knowing I’d be watching the videos in the future where HD will be the standard, it seems like it only makes sense to go HD and have the better quality that’s going to better stand the test of time. Sure it’s a little higher initial investment, but the quality difference is worth it and the footage is going to “age” better in that you won’t be saying how relatively poor the video quality is for a while (until HD gets superseded, which won’t be for a rather long time).
So yes, HD is the way of the future, we’re just in the middle of the transition period. Sooner or later all consumer camcorders will be HD (just like it’s near impossible to get a non-HD TV at a store anymore), so go for it. Your future self will thank you.
Whatever you buy is going to be obsolete in a few years anyway so it’s a strictly personal choice.
Does seeing your kids any clearer make the moment more special? You decide.
Stores are smart enough to price the HD not so high to make it in reach so you’ll spend more thinking, “Why not?” In the end it amounts to a judgement call.
Yes, I guess it should be moved to IMHO. At first I was looking for a factual SD vs. HD discussion, but it really is more of an opinion issue. I don’t mind if it’s moved.
When I was shooting weddings we used JVC GY-500Us and my Panasonic Panasonic AG-DVX100A, both a bit more expensive than what the OP is looking for, and neither HD. For the most part, people didn’t care that they weren’t HD; but this was through 2006. Other studios were beginning to tout their HD cameras, but they couldn’t touch us for quality of production. We always used two cameras, wireless mics, and usually used a jib; plus the owner of the studio was brilliant at editing. For the most part I believe that it’s not so much the camera, but how you use it – though I wouldn’t want to shoot on VHS, and I’d rather shoot super-16 than super-8 on a film.
If money is an issue, I’d say go for the SD camera. If you’re making ‘home movies’ it will be enough. If money is not so much an issue, go ahead and get HD since you might want it later. The best thing to do would be to shoot some tape on each, and then watch it on your TV and choose whichever one you like better.
Yes, HD video works just the same. From Windows Movie Maker’s help file:
Of course I assume it works the same on Windows 7.
Given how prices are falling for HD camcorders, I’d still say go for it. Being “pro” has little to do with it since video as a whole is switching over to HD and SD will soon be a thing of the past. There won’t be another significant video standard like the current HD standards for a while I’d wager, so I think it just makes sense to go HD and be pleased with it for years to come rather than spend a little less, get SD video, and have significantly lower quality videos far into the future.
The only way to achieve what you are looking for is to shoot with Super 8 or 16mm film cameras. Today’s cheapie HD cameras (600-800) will be obsolete in a few years. Even if you buy a prosumer model at $3K-5K or somehow get your hands on a (low end) pro $30K digital camera, you can count on frustruation as you try preserve your precious stills and moving images every couple of years. Even with those higher end cameras that most people don’t own, you’re still looking at obsolescence in 5 years at the most.
Digital = more convenience
It does not provide better quality or archival ability. It’s too bad, but consumers are starting to realize this problem.
What is going to be your method of viewing these later? If it’s always going to be on a PC screen or smaller TV then HD wouldn’t be a factor for me.
However if I was entertaining the relatives with home movies shown on a 50" or bigger screen I would probably want it filmed in HD.
Well, my goal wasn’t to make a zombie movie… but in case anyone cares I wound up going with a JVC HD model. I still use it and am quite happy with it for what I do with it.