Camcorders forum: high fps HD camcorder for under £500?

I don't really know allot about camcorders tbh but hearing what you have had to say has opened my eyes even if I am a bit clueless lol I apologize. Im going to be using a free video editing software videopad. I would like to slow down just general shots to no less than quarter speed. I've heard rumours than the more you slow down a scene the lower the video quality becomes?? Basically I need a camera that can record 1080p HD while being able to play back quarter speed at high quality aswel. I'm going to be slowing down walking scenes, Dancing scenes and singing scenes. I'm not looking to slow down bullets or tennia ball hits just good quality shots that I can easily slow down and not loose quality. If you could give me some advice on what camera to buy for my buck that would be great thanks I'm going to be using tripods and I know a few good camera techniques so I'm just stuck on what camera to buy now

Clarification, please... You want to slow to quarter speed or by a quarter. Big difference. Let us use a 1 second "normal" clip. Slowing a quarter make makes it 1.25 seconds long. Slowing to quarter speed makes it 4 seconds long and "violates" the "don't go less than 1/2 speed" suggestion I made (resulting in a stuttered playback as the clip moves from frame to frame).

The "video quality" is not reduced during slow motion playback. The video quality (horizontal line resolutions, lighting, compression and all that) stays the same. If by reduced video quality you mean "blur", then we need to understand how the shutter works with the video capture.

Generally, in "default" mode, under good lighting conditions, using everything in auto mode, the shutter will be around 1/60 of a second. When action is fast, 1/60 of a second is a pretty long time. Consider that a still image camera capturing the same shot as a still image might be at 1/250, 1/1000 or faster to freeze the action... If you look at the single video frame, it is likely there will be some blur. But you already said you will not be capturing fast action. And assuming you are slowing only by 1/4 and not slowing to 1/4 speed, your video should be just fine. Slowing to 1/4 speed for a 2-3 second clip is not a big deal, but will be painful to watch if much longer than that. Slowing by 1/4 speed will be hardly noticeable. Have you slowed normal video in your computer yet?

I hope that helps. Now lets talk about equipment... Before we select a camera, you are already using a tripod, so that is good. Limit handheld capture.

Will the dancing and singing scenes be captured indoors or outdoors? If lighting is not good, lighting will be needed.

Will the music in the final render be pre-recorded or recorded live by the camcorder? If you are depending on camcorder audio capture and the music is loud, then manual audio control is needed. Multiple takes will be needed because 1 take will be for he audio only (unless you get an audio recorder that stays in one place while the camcorder moves wherever it wants). The last "music video" shoot I was on, the sequences were captured about 30-35 times, the live audio was recorded through a 16 track AVID/Digidesign ProTools hardware/software setup and three Panasonic AG-HVX200 camera were used for video capture. Editing was done using FinalCut Pro. A combination of pre-recorded and live audio was used in the final render...

For £500, the entry level Canon Legria HF R or HF M series or perhaps a "bridge" dSLR from Nikon, Canon, Sony and a few others fit. It is likely you will need to transcode the captured video using an application like MPEG StreamClip from www.squared5.com to a format and file type your editor can deal with.

the dSLR method can have issues. Short clip capture is fine. Long capture sequences can find these cameras overheating and the wait time for cool-down is frustrating. Remember, these are designed to capture stills and video capture is a "convenience feature".

I found I can turn off the power off setting. It's my first camera that will run as long as I have power.

I have not checked to see if it has the usual 30 minute clip limit. I won't write at length but it has nothing to do with the card, capability or such. It's a tax issue.
Bob

Basically if you take a look at Flo rida'a whistle song and watch the cut scenes of the girls thats the exact slow mo I'm trying to recreate. Sorry I can't be more specific but my knowledge is not great on the subject. Also I watched Chris brown don't judge me and his video has used allot of slow mo but he is still lip syncing to the slow.... how on earth is that done??? Thanks

Thats captured at normal default NTSC standard 30 fps and slowed using a video editor to somewhere around 15 frames per second. Multiple cameras were used. The least expensive was likely something in the Sony XDCAM family or similar. No way to really know other than these are common for this sort of shoot.

As for the other - that's what the learning process is for. Have fun figuring it out!

There may be instances in the future where I want to slow down scenes even more than what is most commonly used. Can anyone tell me what the best camcorder is to buy under 500? I won't just be using this camera for one video I will be using it for a couple of years to shoot my future video promotions. I need something that's not old as I will be using ii far into the future and something that can easily cope with the current application I want to give it and also be versatile for future use. Basically a camera with the highest video quality and FPS for under 500. I'm not skilled in this area as I'm a singer not a film maker so there might be alot of factors I'm missing out that make a good camera so really I'm asking for someone who knows in depth about filming and can give me some great advice on what camera to buy to shoot my music videos. Thanks

I re-read this several times before clicking the "Submit Reply" button and I don't know how to make this sound better. I apologize. I do not want to sound mean. That is not not my intent. I am sincerely trying to help.

Since you are a singer... If I were to ask you what the best mic is for $200 that will make my voice sound great - and I have no vocal background, but I see people do it all the time (here's a link) - you could give me a list with Shure, Sennheiser, EV, Audio Technica and several others. But in order for that mic to work, the cables, mixing board, compressors and other effects boxes, amplifiers and speakers are all needed to allow the mic to work... then there's monitors (stage or in-ear?), wired vs wireless mics, live audio or studio, and bunches of other stuff along with someone who knows how to properly use all this audio gear and me taking the time to learn to sing (I'll just ask some folks online for tips), have a stage presence - and maybe add music so now we need musicians and instruments or reasonable equivalents.

The only high FPS capture cams I know of in your price range (or less) are a GoPro or something in the Casio Exilim line. They can capture reduced resolution high frame rates. Higher resolutions at lower frame rates. They - as with all cameras and camcorders at the low end - have small lenses and imaging chip that do poorly under poor lighting conditions. Audio should be captured separately.

You are asking for a low-end video capture device to do things specialized devices do. Even many pro-grade camcorders in the $10,000 or above will not do what you want. Photron, NAC Imaging, Fastec and a few others make high-speed frame capture devices. They *start* at about $40,000 - then add a lens (more $).

You started with "slowing down walking scenes, Dancing scenes and singing scenes" and moved to "instances in the future where I want to slow down scenes even more than what is most commonly used". This is called "scope creep". That's where the defined requirement increases after agreement of a particular capability. Like buying a car, driving it off the lot, then returning a week later asking for the air-conditioner that was not part of the original purchase. Installed for free.

Since the single device you want does not exist, I cannot make a recommendation on which is "best". Perhaps someone else reading this thread can.

Any video capture device can provide great results when it is used within its design capabilities. Those with experience understand that using the video capture device outside of its design parameters generally results in poor quality. You linked us to a video that was produced by people with lots of experience and skill in video capture and are creative with video editing. They learned over time. They used high-end pro-grade equipment that was most likely rented for the project. They likely used more than one camera (one for the "normal" shots, another for the slow motion shots).

Have you downloaded/imported video and slowed it down in a video editor yet?

You say "you are not skilled in this area", but have requirements of equipment at a price point that does not exist (at least - not that I know of). Basically, camcorders in the same price range all have similar "video quality". That's why the products compete with each other. What makes a "good camera" for your requirements may not be a "good" camcorder in the future. What might be better for the future might not meet your current needs. You want a $500 investment to last "far into the future" - but technology (especially consumer electronics) changes quickly, so whatever you buy today will be "outdated" in a couple of weeks.

Assuming you find the camera you want and you are planning to edit the captured video, be prepared to inventory/upgrade your computer system. Video editing is very computer resource intensive. A fast CPU, lots of RAM, big hard drives and the software editing application will need investment, too. And the video editing application will require an investment in time to understand how it works. A camcorder is merely one part of a much larger system. I hope the free video editor does what you need and your computer can deal with the video. High definition video editing needs lots of computer power.

The video editor that was included with my computer did not do what I wanted so I bought a more robust editing application. A single camera does not meet my requirements - I have a couple. A single mic does not meet all my requirements. I have several and a portable digital audio recording device. It took time to amass this collection and learn to use it for my needs. It has been my hobby for over 15 years.

But I looked at what I could afford at the time and went with it. In your case, a camcorder from Canon, Sony, Panasonic or JVC should work. They will not do everything you want. Add a GoPro later.

Good luck.

Taking all of what you have said on board is there any camcorder that you can recommend? My budget is 500 British pounds so that may convert to higher in dollars I'm not sure what the exchange rate is but I have pounds as I'm British. I may not get a great camera but just comething that can in the most basic of ways do what I want it to do... I have not got the money to increase budget unfortunately which is a bummer but I do have 500 ans I have seen some cameras that are like £80 but then some that are £400 there must be significant differences between them both right?? I have looked at go pros and they are to small for me and used more for sport I believe. What in your opinion is the best camcorder out right now for under £500 ? Thanks

"For £500, the entry level Canon Legria HF R or HF M series or perhaps a "bridge" dSLR from Nikon, Canon, Sony and a few others fit. "

"Basically, camcorders in the same price range all have similar "video quality". That's why the products compete with each other."

there can be significant differences when comparing cameras priced at £80 or £400. Just as there are significant differences between consumer grade camcorders in general and prosumer camcorders at £2,000 or pro camcorders at £20,000.

My observation is as the camcorder increases in price, the lens diameter gets bigger (allows more light in) and the imaging chip enlarges (deals better with available light). These two items' size increase allow the camcorder to provide significantly improved performance under low light conditions so the camcorder has a wider useful window of opportunity. One also sees the addition of a mic jack that changes from a 1/8" (3.5mm) stereo audio-in connection to dual (left/right) XLR audio-in connections. And manual controls (zoom, focus, audio control, and many others) appear on the outside of the camcorder so they are easy to reach/use.

Generally, all camcorders under about £20,000 can always be in "auto" mode. Just because they can be optioned to manual mode does not mean manual mode is the only way to use them. ANY camcorder can provide decent video capture if used under enough light for *that camcorder*. But just as there is no single best mic for all audio, there is no single best camcorder for all video.

"Go Pros are too small" is an interesting comment. They can provide high frame rate capture using high definition video formats. Both items were on your requirements above. The *size* of the camcorder was never a defined requirement. The camcorder does not care that it is not capturing "sport". I've seen them used connected to high altitude weather balloons, in vehicles as a "dash-cam" and one was used at my son's very traditional wedding... I would not recommend them as a primary camcorder - but that is merely my opinion.

The "most basic of ways do what [you] want it to do" happen to be non-basic uses of a consumer-grade camcorder.