I was flirting with the notion of purchasing a video camera and sort of training myself in the arts of film making. I was going to enroll in some broadcasting courses next semester, as my university is supposedly top notch in pumping out journalists and all that for the state's shitty news networks and shitty newspapers. But upon further inspection, I found that the courses are heavy on the bullshit, and light on the technical side.

Do we have any video expertise on board? This one of the things I am very interested in, but don't know anything about.

I typed "professional video cameras" into google. A lot of the "professional" cameras were around $17,000, and that was cheap compared to others. So I was originally going to ask if those new DVD camcorders could produce decent quality if one were making a "real movie." But I did stumble across this digital camera from Dell:

Tech specs and highlights

Orinally almost $2,800, but they knocked off around $400 and have a $250 rebate from the maker, dropping the price to around $2,000. Still way out of my price range, but Dell offers installment plans if you have credit (I don't, but maybe a family member will swing for me). Only about $70 per month on the jew system.

Is this a good camera to fit the needs of a somewhat lengthy movie that looks decent? Of course this is only a dream, but I'd like to learn more.

What about editing software? Audio equipment?

Anybody with any video knowledge, just chime in. I don't know anything about this stuff. Just throw in any knowledge you may have. Not just about cameras, but the whole deal.

And while we're talking about video, I hope that this medium very soon gets on the same track as the VNN Radio network. Maybe Alex could start one of those Sustaining Members bits like they have on SF to start funding all these programs. But of course, VNN members already give a lot.

Please help the technically challenged.

Moose,

It all depends on what else you have available and how you intend to put the movie together. I'd advise you to save your money at this point. If you buy that, what you will find is that you still have many ability hurtles to cross before you can make a decent movie.

Of course, any media is better than no media. But that camera will not eliminate the need for you to be able to do precise video editing. Will you be doing that with analog, or digital equipment?

You can go about it either way. The job seems easier going the digital route....it's hard to say on the expense in the long run, and there are quality concerns. The point about the camera is this: why put virtually all your money in that camera when the camera itself is just a drop in the bucket on total costs involved?

Get a web cam, and capture some digital video, and start from there.

When you have proven to yourself that you can take good quality "takes" from clips, and put together audio and video, then ask yourself if the "video component" needs to be improved. I think you'll find that as far as the quality of the final goals that we can reach at this point, any professional camera is really overkill.

Mark Farrell, where are you? I don't have time at the moment as Im out the door to work but he is one you should talk to. He has produced many documentaries. I believe he is a member on this forum. When I get back, and if you havent gotten it yet, I'll give you info on how to contact him.

Moose,

It all depends on what else you have available and how you intend to put the movie together. I'd advise you to save your money at this point. If you buy that, what you will find is that you still have many ability hurtles to cross before you can make a decent movie.

Of course, any media is better than no media. But that camera will not eliminate the need for you to be able to do precise video editing. Will you be doing that with analog, or digital equipment?

You can go about it either way. The job seems easier going the digital route....it's hard to say on the expense in the long run, and there are quality concerns. The point about the camera is this: why put virtually all your money in that camera when the camera itself is just a drop in the bucket on total costs involved?....

True. The camera is just the tip of your costs. For example, can your computer handle all the massive amounts of space the digital video will take up in the editing process? If not you'll have to upgrade the computer or buy a new one.

Moose, I'm pretty much illiterate when it comes to electronics, therefore cannot be of assistance to you, in that department. Hell, my young'uns make damn good home movies (a hundred or more VHS videos in the past 10 years or so) from $300 video cameras. But I suspect that's not good enough for what you have in mind.

In any case, I hope you'll stick with your idea/plan, and not "drop the ball", like so many others do. As you know, talk is cheap and without follow up action, means doodily squat.

(BTW, thanks again for your recent $50 donation to VNN's tabloid newspaper project. You've demonstrated that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is)

I've shot a lot of footage with a Panasonix DVX-100, Sony DSR 250, Cannon XL-1 (big brother to the camera you linked), and few other lower-end cameras. Hands down the Panasonic DVX-100 wins. The DVX-100 supports 24p mode, has a great "film look" to it and it's affordable. There are also a ton of third party add-ons for it. If you want to make films and not documentaries I also suggest looking into getting an anamorphic adaptor for whatever camera you end up with.

Just off the top of my head and in no particular order, the following gear is essential for a high-quality film production house. Suggested manufacturers are in parens:

Field

- DV camera that shoots 24p (Panasonic)
- Anamorphic adaptor for 16:9 look (Century Optics)
- Matte box (Century Optics)
- Basic light kit (Arri)
- Small portable collapsable reflector
- Assorted pack of gels
- Misc. clamps and stands for gels and scrims.
- Boom (Gitzo or Lightwave)
- Shotgun mic that support swappable capsules (Seinnheiser)
- Short and long pattern mic (Seinnheiser)
- Portable mixer/pre-amp (Shure or SoundDesign)
- XLR cables
- Slate
- ColorCheck card, 18% Grey card

Studio

- Desktop mixer (Mackie)
- Monitor speakers
- Macintosh with Final Cut Pro software and Peak BIAS
or
- PC with Vegas Video and SoundForge
- Firewire capture card or built in firewire port

I'm sure I missed a few things. When I spec'ed out start-up costs a year ago for building a low-budget film studio the total cost of gear was about 20k. You can get away with less, but your production quality will suffer. The idea that you can make something decent with crap gear is a nice one, but it's not realistic.

I've shot a lot of footage with a Panasonix DVX-100, Sony DSR 250, Cannon XL-1 (big brother to the camera you linked), and few other lower-end cameras. Hands down the Panasonic DVX-100 wins. The DVX-100 supports 24p mode, has a great "film look" to it and it's affordable. There are also a ton of third party add-ons for it. If you want to make films and not documentaries I also suggest looking into getting an anamorphic adaptor for whatever camera you end up with.

Just off the top of my head and in no particular order, the following gear is essential for a high-quality film production house. Suggested manufacturers are in parens:

Field

- DV camera that shoots 24p (Panasonic)
- Anamorphic adaptor for 16:9 look (Century Optics)
- Matte box (Century Optics)
- Basic light kit (Arri)
- Small portable collapsable reflector
- Assorted pack of gels
- Misc. clamps and stands for gels and scrims.
- Boom (Gitzo or Lightwave)
- Shotgun mic that support swappable capsules (Seinnheiser)
- Short and long pattern mic (Seinnheiser)
- Portable mixer/pre-amp (Shure or SoundDesign)
- XLR cables
- Slate
- ColorCheck card, 18% Grey card

Studio

- Desktop mixer (Mackie)
- Monitor speakers
- Macintosh with Final Cut Pro software and Peak BIAS
or
- PC with Vegas Video and SoundForge
- Firewire capture card or built in firewire port

I'm sure I missed a few things. When I spec'ed out start-up costs a year ago for building a low-budget film studio the total cost of gear was about 20k. You can get away with less, but your production quality will suffer. The idea that you can make something decent with crap gear is a nice one, but it's not realistic.

This is a great list, krrpt. However, its really easy to overshoot a budget and end up with nothing. I've tried to make the point that virtually any quality media is better than no media at all. If we can be successful competing on a quality level with Paramount Pictures, I am going to be the last person to voice an objection. However, I'd rather have the ability to make stick figure cartoons with a racial message that appeals to people, and rings a chord of truth within them than a stick or two of equipment gathering dust in a closet.

Making "something", anything with crap gear usually isn't a cost obsticle, and generally the process can be step-wise improved as financial ability permits. Well, at least thats the method I've generally found to be least demoralizing.

If we can be successful competing on a quality level with Paramount Pictures, I am going to be the last person to voice an objection. However, I'd rather have the ability to make stick figure cartoons with a racial message that appeals to people, and rings a chord of truth within them than a stick or two of equipment gathering dust in a closet.

Hello,

I understand that point of view. I'm the kind of person that wants to do it right or not at all. I think to do it right requires a serious investment.

With the right gear you can get close to Paramount Pictures. Have you ever heard of the film 28 Days Later? That's just one example of a film that was shot on DV that was shown in theatres (it was shot on a Canon XL-1 I think). Having some experience in this area, I know how critical it is to not be gear-gimped. There is nothing more frustrating than having a vision of something and not having the tools to bring it to fruition.

Having the right gear is only half the equation though. The other half is having the right people. I think many people underestimate what it takes to make a film. One man with a camera, with rare exceptions, is going to make garbage. In the end, creative ability is more important than gear.

I'm a huge proponent of building a pro-white mass media, and while I know we can never compete with the Jewish brainwashing system we can counter it. To do this effectively we need to have the right "stuff" - gear, people and funding. Getting our voice heard in high-quality films, stories and documentaries is key. A great message can be easily lost if the vehicle of transmission lacks aesthetic value.

By the way, if you are satisfied with just doing stick figure cartoons I suggest using a tool like Flash. It's perfect for that kind fo thing. Cheap too!

I've shot a lot of footage with a Panasonix DVX-100, Sony DSR 250, Cannon XL-1 (big brother to the camera you linked), and few other lower-end cameras. Hands down the Panasonic DVX-100 wins. The DVX-100 supports 24p mode, has a great "film look" to it and it's affordable. There are also a ton of third party add-ons for it. If you want to make films and not documentaries I also suggest looking into getting an anamorphic adaptor for whatever camera you end up with.

Just off the top of my head and in no particular order, the following gear is essential for a high-quality film production house. Suggested manufacturers are in parens:

Field

- DV camera that shoots 24p (Panasonic)
- Anamorphic adaptor for 16:9 look (Century Optics)
- Matte box (Century Optics)
- Basic light kit (Arri)
- Small portable collapsable reflector
- Assorted pack of gels
- Misc. clamps and stands for gels and scrims.
- Boom (Gitzo or Lightwave)
- Shotgun mic that support swappable capsules (Seinnheiser)
- Short and long pattern mic (Seinnheiser)
- Portable mixer/pre-amp (Shure or SoundDesign)
- XLR cables
- Slate
- ColorCheck card, 18% Grey card

Studio

- Desktop mixer (Mackie)
- Monitor speakers
- Macintosh with Final Cut Pro software and Peak BIAS
or
- PC with Vegas Video and SoundForge
- Firewire capture card or built in firewire port

I'm sure I missed a few things. When I spec'ed out start-up costs a year ago for building a low-budget film studio the total cost of gear was about 20k. You can get away with less, but your production quality will suffer. The idea that you can make something decent with crap gear is a nice one, but it's not realistic.

Now that's what I'm looking for.

I'm not trying to be the next Martin Scorcesse (not yet anyway ). Nor do I have in mind a 2 hour full length film.

I just want to start off with something, maybe 15 minutes. A small time documentary.

For example:

Gather footage of young White children and White women. Over this footage, I voice over audio of that speech Khalid Abdul Muhammed gave in which he advocates murder of White women and children.

http://www.solargeneral.com/av/DrKhalidMuhammed.mp3

Or something similiar.

Then move into footage of negro crime infested neighborhoods, all the while Beethoven's piano sonata plays over.

http://www.edepot.com/music/beethoven/s14-1.mid

Something along those lines. Simple, yet has the maximum emotional effect. With today's technology, we should be pumping out video constantly. Like Poseidon said, it doesn't have to be top notch. Any media at all will do.

Hello,

I understand that point of view. I'm the kind of person that wants to do it right or not at all. I think to do it right requires a serious investment.

With the right gear you can get close to Paramount Pictures. Have you ever heard of the film 28 Days Later? That's just one example of a film that was shot on DV that was shown in theatres (it was shot on a Canon XL-1 I think). Having some experience in this area, I know how critical it is to not be gear-gimped. There is nothing more frustrating than having a vision of something and not having the tools to bring it to fruition.

Having the right gear is only half the equation though. The other half is having the right people. I think many people underestimate what it takes to make a film. One man with a camera, with rare exceptions, is going to make garbage. In the end, creative ability is more important than gear.

I'm a huge proponent of building a pro-white mass media, and while I know we can never compete with the Jewish brainwashing system we can counter it. To do this effectively we need to have the right "stuff" - gear, people and funding. Getting our voice heard in high-quality films, stories and documentaries is key. A great message can be easily lost if the vehicle of transmission lacks aesthetic value.

By the way, if you are satisfied with just doing stick figure cartoons I suggest using a tool like Flash. It's perfect for that kind fo thing. Cheap too!

krrpt,
Truer words were never spoken. To be honest, I'm not really the "one man" who could make everything work via the high tech vision. At various times I have creative impulses that result in something I'm mildly proud of.

But what you said about the creative work being in excess of the technical work is the very subtle truth that men who venture into the area don't see until after they get into it a ways. That's another reason why I advise someone who has a dream in this area to test themselves in the low tech department first. The creative message....the art....will show through the quality of the technology if it's really there. And the investment in software and equipment for the "crappy" side is so close to nothing that it's virtually a gimme.

With a tripod and a web cam, and some space, and or a video capture card, one can create video segments, and do them and redo them until they have the message and best quality they think they are gonna get. Using a video editor, perfect digital video splices can be made, words can be added to the screen, the audio track can be split out, edited, or rerecorded if necessary, music can be mixed/faded in...Video transitional effects can be added in....etc. Once upon a time, I did all this. Unfortunately, I was a little more impressed with the result than anyone I showed the work too. That was probably because I have very little acting talent, and the people I showed the technology too didn't reason out and get excited about the difference.

Of course, back then I didn't know about VNN either. Perhaps there is writing and acting talent here. I don't know. But anyway, even say we do it the low tech way as a try, that wouldn't stop anyone from going the high tech way later, or even in parallel.

Film-making requires specialization and is carried out best by a group of cooperating specialists. This is true of hollywood studios today, this has always been true about film-making. There are directors, photographers, cameramen producers and actors/subjects. It's not a one-man show. What time would of Shakespeare had if he built all of his own stages and props?

There are writers, directors, producers and technicians. You have to apply your limited strengths to a specific area and network a team together that can get the thing shot.

Film-making requires specialization and is carried out best by a group of cooperating specialists.

My experience has been that as a bare minumum you can get away with a crew of 5 in the field and 1 or 2 people sitting in the studio at the editing suite. I did a shoot with only 3 people once and it was a mess!

* Boom man w/ portable mixer
* Director - deals with actors
* Director of Photography - sets up the shots and lighting
* Camera operator
* Grip to lug crap around, manage the slate, get coffee, whatever.

By the way I forgot two things on my list!

- Tripod (thanks for reminding me Poseidon)
- Video monitor so the crew can see what the camera sees.

That's another reason why I advise someone who has a dream in this area to test themselves in the low tech department first. The creative message....the art....will show through the quality of the technology if it's really there.

Good point and very true. I agree 100%.

I was going to enroll in some broadcasting courses next semester, as my university is supposedly top notch in pumping out journalists and all that for the state's shitty news networks and shitty newspapers. But upon further inspection, I found that the courses are heavy on the bullshit, and light on the technical side.

Yes they are heavy in bullshit, I have taken a few journalism and media classes myself, but I think it is a good thing for WN to learn these fields and perhaps to even get jobs in them. We need infiltrators and lots of them.

Moose, these guys are giving out wish lists for semi-pro's that would make a fella with a doctor's salary think twice.

Just get a high end consumer camcorder at Walmart and take the fucker back to Sam Walton after using it for 30 days.

Face it, your only distribution is going to be over the internet, you wont be exibiting in a movie house, even a small one.

I