Whoa. Sony, Panny, and now Canon? Which ONE?

[HowdyDoo]

Okay... I let myself get out of the video technology loop over the past year and man, how things have changed! All in one year!!!

Now that Canon has released their prosumer HD camera, I am totally LOST as to which camera to get.

Which HD prosumer camera do you think would be best for independent filmmaking?

The Sony Z-1? The Panasonic HVX200? The Canon XL HD?

[Digigenic]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/WICKEDPIXEL/photography/4_HDHDVCams_weaponofchoice.jpg
Dude, you forgot JVC...
BE SURE TO CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON WISELY... (http://www.studentfilmmakers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1448)

[MattC]

Who knows? The only two I'd consider aren't out yet. But it will/would be either the HVX or the XLH1. Of course, by the time I'm ready to go HD, the field could look completely different.

[Digigenic]

Just take a look at how these cameras are when placed side by side. Take notice of how strategic these cameras have been manufactured and marketed in correlation with one another to the customer. Nobody is stepping on anybody's toes here. If I didn't know any better, I'd presume based on their capabilities, price points, and even appearance that these cameras could have very likely come from the same damn company...

[Walter_Graff]

It's all a mater of personal taste. None is better just better for your needs. All perform very much the same. As for buying, wait till you see what happens in at least a years time.

[stephenlnoe]

Just take a look at how these cameras are when placed side by side. Take notice of how strategic these cameras have been manufactured and marketed in correlation with one another to the customer. Nobody is stepping on anybody's toes here. If I didn't know any better, I'd presume based on their capabilities, price points, and even appearance that these cameras could have very likely come from the same damn company...

Right, they all came from Samsung :grin: Canon, Sony, JVC and Panasonic on the outside, Samsung on the inside

[AshG]

I agree digi... not ONE of them does it all and each has a desirable feature the others lack...



ash =o)

[jrv3034]

Given the four choices, for indie filmmaking I'd go with an HVX w/Firestore for less than $8000. It's 1080/24p in 4:2:2 DVCProHD direct to hard disk. For event videography (weddings, concerts, sports) then HDV on tape is probably better. But filmmaking needs all the oomph you can get, and the HVX seems like the most bang for your buck.

[jrv3034]

Come to think of it, why would anyone get the HD100 now that the XL H1 is announced? They're both HDV on MiniDV tape, but the Canon is 1080i/24F versus 720/24P, and all the HD-SDI goodness... The JVC seems like the less qualified, cheaper version of the XL H1, doesn't it?

[Jeremy Ordan]

Until there is a hands on review of all four cameras talking about which to buy is pointless... It's like buying a lotto ticket and dreaming about what you are going to do when you win.

[yellowdog]

[QUOTE=

Now that Canon has released their prosumer HD camera, I am totally LOST as to which camera to get.

Which HD prosumer camera do you think would be best for independent filmmaking?

The Sony Z-1? The Panasonic HVX200? The Canon XL HD?[/QUOTE]




oh boy, here we go again.Shall we keep a tally on how many times these questions get asked? Maybe make a seperate thread for them, or better yet, a seperate forum? I dunno, something like www.whatcam2buy.com (http://www.whatcam2buy.com) ?:laugh:

[Isaac_Brody]

We definitely need a camera shoot out. So many options...

[mikkowilson]

I know exactly what I'd spend the money on if I won the lottery :P

- Mikko

[Jeremy Ordan]

I know exactly what I'd spend the money on if I won the lottery :P

- Mikko

Two girls at once right? (Office Space)

[mikkowilson]

Actually... no.

- Mikko

[Digigenic]

Two girls at once right? (Office Space)
:laugh:

[Zig_Zigman]

For usable form factor, ease of editing, and portability, I'll take the HVX.

I'm also assuming the picture looks good...

[MattC]

Two girls at once right? (Office Space)

That's what I'd spend the money on....

Actually, I'd go to Brno and pick up a bakers dozen...

[SquidLips]

I think the key is he said independant filmmaking. That means the camera with more "cinema" options (lens possibilities, variable frames, gamma curve, etc.)

I am very interested in hearing more about the Canon. I settled on the HVX because of it's more "feature film friendly" options. If the Canon has varible frames in HD, it may win me over....

[athouguia]

Among these cameras, JVC is the only PRO camera with professional lens, no autofocus and amateur features. Propably like XL2, XL-H1 is an unbalanced and uncomfortable camera to use, with non-pro lens. HVX is a camera with pro features in another prosumer body, and to make things worse you can't use tape and it has no shoulder pad. It weights as much as the HD100 or a XL2... you'll need a strong arm. Sony is Interlaced, another handycam, no pro lens... in my opinion the worst choice. Of course, to make a real comparision a side-by-side test would be required. But at first impression, I'll take the JVC.

[Nathyn]

I had this posted somewhere else but it actually belongs in this area so I'll jump here. I like the Canon because of it's form factor and it's storage capacity. I doubt I'll ever shoot true HD unless some ask for it. If needed, then I'd run out and rent an HD deck. But frankly I don't plan to do any HD shooting. Now HDV on the other hand, that's a different story. Here's the way it's looking with HD/HDV:

Sony:
Love the Sony DV image. Don't like Sony as a company. They seem to know what we want and consistantly decide not to give it to us to protect camera that aren't even threatened because of price. People who want 2/3 chips won't seattle if they can afford not too. But if Sony does throw us a bone they do it in some sucktastic way. And yes it's intentional and yes I take it personally. Screw Sony. Why do I say screw Sony? Because I can considering the options are vast.

Panny (aka Pana/Panasonic):
Love these guys. Always will. But this P2 thing isn't doing it for me. If you could switch from HD to HDV then I'd look at it harder. While I'm still not totally over the HVX I'm not as excited as I was after Canon's news. On the backend one has to think about the fact that even though this camera is HD, your set up will have to become HD too, which is expensive unless Pana's going to offer us cheaper decks and tape (back to tape again so not completely "tapeless" on output).

JVC:
Simply never used a prosumer JVC. I did use that square consumer cam that used to have the swivel screen. If JVC made one of those in three chip with 24p, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I loved that thing. I know Pana, Sony and Canon all produce great images. I know nothing about JVC other than the experience I mentioned. The problems with the camera are also a draw back for me. I don't think even Sony suffered from split screens and dead pix. Bad press and a big digital projector when they did their press coference but not a bad image from the actual cam. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Now that JVC fixes it, the problems are still there but simply unseen or masked. Also no 1080i/24p only 720/24p. While the look and form factor whooed me (I'm loving the small shoulder mounted cameras) all these other things together kill my enthusiasm for it.

Canon:
Love the form factor. If I can shoot HDV 1080/24f, store three to six hours on an FS and then bump it down to DV for SD viewing or up to HD to make an HD master (not to mention output to HD if I really need to via HD deck while shooting) then I'm all good. I doubt Canon would put something out on the market that gives a bad image.

I do perfer Panasonic's 24p/30p image over Canon and Sony's interlaced image over everyone elses 60i image but I don't shoot interlaced most of the time. And if I did I like Canon's 60i (or what I'm sure would be a similar 1080i) image enough. But shooting 1080i/24f sounds good to me. 1080 interlaced lines squeeze into one frame 24 times. That's what I need. From what I hear HDV is better than a PAL DV to film output. I'd have to see it but I've seen films shot on NTSC DV and projected and they looked fine, so an image that's better than PAL DV would be great. Again if someone has a ton of cash and wants me to rent or buy a HD deck, or if I know I'm going to film out I'll get a deck, but I don't really need all that right now.

At this point I should also mention a product called "The LaCie Bigger Disk" which says it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video. Think about it guys. It's basically a 1 terabyte drive

If I got this cam today, I'd still be shooting DV. As soon as I got an HDV set up (Mac G5/FCP Studio/a terabyte drive/HD monitor, etc) I'd start shooting HDV. I'd make a DV master and a Betacam master. If someone actually wants an HD DVD, I can do that, and if someone wants an HD master again I'd rent a deck and save to HD tape directly from the computer. There's the workflow I'm looking at and it looks pretty good. That's how I see it.

-Nate

[SquidLips]

Does everyone here feel the "cine" look of Canon (so far) is not as nice as the Pana? I have heard that a lot that the XL2 does not look as "film-like" as the DVX. This is a big issue with me as I would really like ONLY to shoot narrative features with the camera and want the audience to feel as film-comfortable as possible while watching.

For instance, when I saw Open Water (which I am pretty sure was not shot 24P but could be wrong) I was never able to get into the film. Felt cheap to me. But if it was a documentary it would have been different. It's just a style thing, I know, and don't feel one thing is better over another over all but am trying to get something that will help me in that area.

So...any takers on this XL2 vs. DVX image thing (for film look)? And if that is so, could there be a change in the new XL?

[Knock Out Films]

In my opinon, Canon has always had a great image. Everyone talks about how the DVX changed the industry, but we really need to give the original Canon GL-1 it's due. That thing rocked, had amazing image, very crushed, and the frame mode was ahead of it's time.

My DVX rocks the GL-1, but I will always have very fond memories of my Cannon. But overall, again, I think the new XL HD will have a great image. Canon is not know to screw around. The only thing that still bothers me is the HDV. Don't know how I can get past that in the edit. Especially when working the image.

Early news out of resfest is so, so, on the HVX image in 1080i mode. I fully understand the camera is not done, but still, ? why would they show an image from a camera that they admit is not ready. Man, this is getting tense. :)

Cheers,
Chris

[Anhar Miah]

Guys, Cameras at this level, have all the options to tweak the camera to make the image look like anything you want.


Anhar

[mmm]

For usable form factor, ease of editing, and portability, I'll take the HVX.

I'm also assuming the picture looks good...

Usable form factor - What, a breeze block! IMO this is the worst of the 4 by a mile.

Ease of editing - If you have 4 times the disk space of the HDV options and a well planned backing-up procedure.

Portability - This camera CAN NOT shoot extended runs of HD without:
a) lugging around a laptop and hard drives for downloading from P2 & Firestore
b) Spending a FORTUNE on extra P2 cards and Firestores.
The other 3 cameras can shoot HD ALL DAY with a pocket full of £1.50 tapes (and maybe a few pockets full of batteries for the JVC!).

However, like you said, image is everything - I can live with the above problems if the output rocks, but please consider these factors carefully, the camera is not how you described at all.

[Loki]

something tells me the HVX is the key to Panasonic getting P2 Prices to come down enough for Pro users to use them in bundles down the road...

[Antoine_Fabi]

I think they have no choice.
If they dont dont get the P2 prices to come down, the camcorder will be seen as a "cinema" only.

...and most producers dont do cinema "that" much.
Who can carry external capture devices on all jobs ?

But if a manufacturer builds a very lightweight capture device fixed on the camcorder, then it is another story, it will be great !

[stephenlnoe]

Usable form factor - What, a breeze block! IMO this is the worst of the 4 by a mile.

Ease of editing - If you have 4 times the disk space of the HDV options and a well planned backing-up procedure.

Portability - This camera CAN NOT shoot extended runs of HD without:
a) lugging around a laptop and hard drives for downloading from P2 & Firestore
b) Spending a FORTUNE on extra P2 cards and Firestores.
The other 3 cameras can shoot HD ALL DAY with a pocket full of £1.50 tapes (and maybe a few pockets full of batteries for the JVC!).

However, like you said, image is everything - I can live with the above problems if the output rocks, but please consider these factors carefully, the camera is not how you described at all.

I see the smoke clearing, mmm. Nice reality check.

This is a quote from Tom Kolb off of cow:



The current line of DVC ProHD cameras are exceptional and they maximize the format's image quality, but DVC ProHD does do some subsampling overall, which means that when you quote DVC ProHD as "4:2:2"...it is delivered through SDI that way, but the file on disk or tape actually preserves the subsampled frame at 4:2:2, not the full raster.

HDV 1080:______Frame res 1440x1080, 4:2:0, Y sample: 1440x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 720x540
DVCProHD
1080 30 fps:____Frame res 1920x1080, 4:2:2, Y sample: 1280x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 640x1080
1080 25 fps:____Frame res 1920x1080, 4:2:2, Y sample: 1440x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 720x1080

HDV 720p:______Frame res 1280x720, 4:2:0, Y sample: 1280x720, Cr,Cb Sample 640x360
DVCProHD 720p:_Frame res 1280x720, 4:2:2, Y sample: 960x720, Cr,Cb Sample 480x720


I'm not trying to say that HDV is equal to DVC ProHD here...or that DVC ProHD is "bad", it's great looking stuff in the cases I've observed. It's just that perhaps HDV isn't as "bad" as some may think relative to the other choices out there.

I did the math, and he is right. The DVCProHD is not the full raster to the P2 drive so there is difference but not tremedously. DVCProHD is MXF (actually DIF once it's unwrapped) and HDV is Mpeg2. There is a difference but JVC's offering has a GOP of 6!. Too bad JVC had to have split screen issues right off the bat. We'll see if it get's straightented out. Canon's HD-SDI out and genlock set it apart but the 15-GOP is not as precise as JVC's 6-GOP.

I didn't hear what audio format was recorded for the Canon. Does anyone know the audio format?

[Antoine_Fabi]

The Canon has GOP of 15 ?

[stephenlnoe]

15, Thats what they say. 1/2 second....

[mmm]

The Canon has GOP of 15 ?

Yep, just like the Sonys. It has to be in order to be HDV.

[robroysyd]

Still you do get the option of recording uncompressed 4.2.2 HD to an external device. Just WHAT external device is going to cope with a data rate of nearly 2 Gb/second is yet to be seen but at least Canon aren't stopping you from doing that.
The other HUGE feature with the Canon is being able to control everyone of the zillion image controls from a laptop. I can see this camera selling big time into the broadcast market as a cheap OB camera.
From what I've read so far about the Canon, it's about as far as you can go with HDV and/or 1/3" chips for HiDef. Bigger chips are the only way to get better performance but that is when the cost goes up very quickly. Look like there'll be two choices in this marketplace, the Sony Z1 and the XL H1. The Sony will probably still do well for those who are cost conscious or who don't want to / don't have the time, to spend tweaking the image.

[braw]

Among these cameras, JVC is the only PRO camera with professional lens, no autofocus and amateur features.

Ouch! :shocked:

[stephenlnoe]

Still you do get the option of recording uncompressed 4.2.2 HD to an external device. Just WHAT external device is going to cope with a data rate of nearly 2 Gb/second is yet to be seen but at least Canon aren't stopping you from doing that.
The other HUGE feature with the Canon is being able to control everyone of the zillion image controls from a laptop. I can see this camera selling big time into the broadcast market as a cheap OB camera.
From what I've read so far about the Canon, it's about as far as you can go with HDV and/or 1/3" chips for HiDef. Bigger chips are the only way to get better performance but that is when the cost goes up very quickly. Look like there'll be two choices in this marketplace, the Sony Z1 and the XL H1. The Sony will probably still do well for those who are cost conscious or who don't want to / don't have the time, to spend tweaking the image.

All of them are great but, I really think the JVC has a leg up on everyone for film makers and documentary makers. I wish the HD-100 wouldn't have the split screen issue's that it is having right out of the gate but format wise and to tape capability I think JVC has hit a home run. The only thing's that set the Canon higher are genlock and HD-SDI out. In essence you're paying $3500 more for those two options. It may be worth it if you're doing multicam on some systems. On Liquid, multicam does not require synced timecode so genlock is nice to have but not necessary. I can see in a broadcast situation the need though. Canon has aimed high with the H1. My hat's off to them, but for most bang for the buck I have to give the award to JVC.

Let's see what the next batch of camera's offers, and there is another batch coming....

[mikkowilson]

Another batch?!?!
does this mean we need to get wishlists started for: the HVX200A, the XLH1s, the Z2, and the HD200?

..."Great"!

- Mikko

[goldyprog]

I didn't hear what audio format was recorded for the Canon. Does anyone know the audio format?


I think I heard a few days ago MPEG-2, 384 kbps, 16 bit, i.e. similar (if not identical) to the GY-HD100. I think that's an important difference when comparing the XL H1 to Panasonic's upcoming HVX.

[goldyprog]

All of them are great but, I really think the JVC has a leg up on everyone for film makers and documentary makers. I wish the HD-100 wouldn't have the split screen issue's that it is having right out of the gate but format wise and to tape capability I think JVC has hit a home run. The only thing's that set the Canon higher are genlock and HD-SDI out. In essence you're paying $3500 more for those two options. It may be worth it if you're doing multicam on some systems. On Liquid, multicam does not require synced timecode so genlock is nice to have but not necessary. I can see in a broadcast situation the need though. Canon has aimed high with the H1. My hat's off to them, but for most bang for the buck I have to give the award to JVC.

Let's see what the next batch of camera's offers, and there is another batch coming....


I strongly agree, the JVC, from what I've read and the sample shots I have seen thus far impress the hell out of me, even with the stock lens, I mean they are $5500. $5500 . . .

For $3500 or so more, one would be paying primarily for the HD-SDI and gl, but another difference that I notice is the lens. Canon is calling their lens an 'HD' lens, whereas the Fujinon lens with JVC's is a ProHD lens, and it seems many people are disappointed with this lens. It does come down to seeing the footage, I think a four way test between all cameras would be AWESOME: definitely monumental, because all of these cameras are revolutionary in terms of making higher quality AV affordable for professionals. The release of all these cameras this year is very historical.

In terms of price and applications, I'm sticking with a pair of JVCs and an HVX. I'd be very interested in the Canon in the future, maybe when Optware's line comes out . . . that would more than wow me.

[mmm]

I think I heard a few days ago MPEG-2, 384 kbps, 16 bit, i.e. similar (if not identical) to the GY-HD100. I think that's an important difference when comparing the XL H1 to Panasonic's upcoming HVX.

I was thinking this too, but to be honest, at 384Kbps, the quality is so good that it becomes a non-issue IMHO.

For me, there are far greater compromises in any 1/3" camera, that it renders this tiny difference in audio irrelevant.

How do you feel about it?

PS
I just tried comparing 224Kbps against uncompressed on a decent set of speakers, and the difference is just noticeably if play straight after each other. At 384Kbps, I really don't think anyone would ever comment on it in ANY viewing situation what-so-ever. Maybe a sound guy in the mixdown, but that hardly matters. I'll try and find a really clean sample to encode at 384Kbps to see if I notice any difference.

[robroysyd]

Just be careful how you're making the comparison. HDV uses mpeg-1 layer 2 encoding, not mp3 which at 384Kbps is pretty good. I suspect the reason they went for what they did in the HDV spec was to avoid paying licencing fees for mp3.
We've recorded from the same source into digibeta at 24/48 and a Z1 and with complex orchestral material the HDV sounds pretty mudied compared to the DB.
Still in my opinion this isn't an issue, no camera excels at recording audio anyway. HDVs audio is adequate for 90% of the time, mostly all cameras are recording are dialogue. If you needs something better you'll probably be taking along an audio guy who'll have his own field recorder.

[mmm]

Just be careful how you're making the comparison. HDV uses mpeg-1 layer 2 encoding, not mp3 which at 384Kbps is pretty good. I suspect the reason they went for what they did in the HDV spec was to avoid paying licencing fees for mp3.
We've recorded from the same source into digibeta at 24/48 and a Z1 and with complex orchestral material the HDV sounds pretty mudied compared to the DB.
Still in my opinion this isn't an issue, no camera excels at recording audio anyway. HDVs audio is adequate for 90% of the time, mostly all cameras are recording are dialogue. If you needs something better you'll probably be taking along an audio guy who'll have his own field recorder.

It was actually .AC3, I don't know where that fits in to things.

I guess the digiBeta would also have better audio electronics, which would make as much of a difference. For an orchestra I wouldn't recommend compressed audio, but like you said, for stuff like that, you aren't going to be recording audio to HDV.

[goldyprog]

I was thinking this too, but to be honest, at 384Kbps, the quality is so good that it becomes a non-issue IMHO.

For me, there are far greater compromises in any 1/3" camera, that it renders this tiny difference in audio irrelevant.

How do you feel about it?


To me, it simply depends on the application, the presentation of the content, and the output. For doing broadcast, corporate videos, and things which don't require much 'amazing' audio playback, 384 kbps from the JVC or the Canon should probably work out great-- granted, I haven't seen either of them operate or get audio test results from the JVC.

But what if your product is going to movie theaters? Or places with thousands of dollars worth of speakers for that matter? I would hope that there wouldn't be much of a difference, and that top-of-the-line speakers would not shed truth of compressed audio coming from either the JVC or Canon, since their specs that I have read up on so far amaze me, given their price range. But to me that is something worth considering and doing tests with them against the uncompressed audio capture on the HVX.

I'm planning (and hoping) to get JVC's (2) and a Panasonic for my feature-length documentary. Doing a two-cam set-up with one JVC and Panasonic would be interesting, and may shed some light on possible audio quality differences . . .

[Justin_Kirch]

i think panasonic hit it right on the head with the HVX. not one of these other cameras can record uncompressed DVCProHD. the HVX can and it will own the market, once again.

[stephenlnoe]

i think panasonic hit it right on the head with the HVX. not one of these other cameras can record uncompressed DVCProHD. the HVX can and it will own the market, once again.

Justin,

There is no such thing as uncompressed DVCProHD. DVCProHD is a codec which is compressed. Uncompressed is uncompressed. Furthermore DVCProHD is an 8 bit codec with 256 gradations. It's not 10 or 12 bit color. It seems like you're excited about the HVX, and you should be, however, you're making it out to be somthing that it is not (a $60,000 - $100,000 camera).

[athouguia]

the HVX can and it will own the market, once again.

It can, but you don't know if it will. It would be an excelent camera if it had a professional body like HD100, or at least a shoulder mount like H1. It's a heavy handycam with another servo assisted focus... maybe it will own the prosumer market! :thumbsup:

[Nathyn]

For me the question is simply how's the motion and can I shoot action. The camera that allows me to do this is one I'll look at closely. I could care less about a great image if I can do what I do with it. I've heard some of these cams aren't so good with action scenes. Anyone know how the JVC is looking. People have already commented on the Panasonic and no one's really seen the Canon yet so what's the word?
But what if your product is going to movie theaters? Or places with thousands of dollars worth of speakers for that matter? I would hope that there wouldn't be much of a difference, and that top-of-the-line speakers would not shed truth of compressed audio coming from either the JVC or Canon, since their specs that I have read up on so far amaze me, given their price range.
Keep in mind also that most people hire a sound engineer and sound designer if they're going to film.

-Nate

[OliverM]

About the JVC: there was someone saying that this is the ONLY pro camera since evrything is manual. I agree that this aimes the camera very straightforward @ the promarket. But using this as a reason to put it on top is a little far fetched for me. All the other cameras can be operated completely manual aswell. In some circumstances I actually like having a decent autofocus or auto-iris on board. It depends what and how you're shooting.
And in my opninion that goes for all the cameras aswell. Take a look and see what fits your workflow and wallet best. Every cam has its weaknesses so look @ how you work, look @ the image they produce, the workflow they require and dicide.
As for Walters comment to wait for the next generation. I don't know... If you need a camera that can do HD now, buy it now. If you need it in six months buy it then. And if you can afford to wait for the next generation to come along before you buy, then I'm sure there are more useful things to do then getting worked up on a forum over a cam you don't need!
All in all it's not that complicated. When you need something then you look what suits your individual needs best, you go out, buy it and start making money with it.

Now, for the cams... My preference is going to the HVX for now. It gives me 3 different bandwith possibilities wich helps me deliver the quality my client wants/needs. There are VERY cool things on it such as the variable frame rate.
As for archiving, I don't need to archive much. And the things I do will probably go to harddisk. Maybe a safety back-up on miniDV. I also work as videreporter and there I have to manage my own footage. So nothing to turn in after a shoot. And if there was I'd transfer it to (again) harddisk and give that one. Either they buy the disk from me or I collect it later, whatever.
And if I get a majorly important and or expansive job I'll dump to 2 harddisks.
Anyhow, for me this cam gives me the time and capability to grow into HD as fast or slow as I want. And with 2 P2 cards and a firestore I got all the goods I need. Besides, I'll probably use the miniDV deck quite a lot aswell.
So this is why this cam suits MY needs. If you guy's work this out for yourselves the choice should be a whole lot easier. :)

[mezelf27]

No, I have to agree. The JVC is a Professional cam, and only sold to professionals (not in regular stores as e.g. the sony). It will fit the shooting style of professionals better (yielding better results and better workflow). Quite an important argument

[stephenlnoe]

Yes, the JVC was not meant for a point and shooter. Sony and HVX (they say) are point and shoot cameras (handycam). This is not to say you can not put either camera in manual mode and set it up the way you want.

Nevertheless, the JVC is designed to be handled by a professional advanced videographer.

[Walter_Graff]

"No, I have to agree. The JVC is a Professional cam, and only sold to professionals (not in regular stores as e.g. the sony). It will fit the shooting style of professionals better (yielding better results and better workflow). Quite an important argument"

I have not used a piece of JVC equipment since I was in school in 1982. I've never seen JVC used professionally anywhere since then. None of the professional equipment places I deal with even sell JVC because it is a consumer division. This new entry is marketed as "pro" but that is just that, a marketing term. The problem with why you don't see JVC equipment being sold is not because it is only "used by pros", rather JVC has no marketing and no one sells it. When I saw JVCs entry into the prosumer world I predicted just what I am reading on various websites were again and again folks ask; "what happened to JVC. They introduced that camera, the fell off the face of the earth. In actuality they never had their feet on the earth in the first place." All the cameras mentioned are still prosumer regardless of what marketing terms the companies that sell them use.

[stephenlnoe]

@Graff-Professional in the meaning that it is not automatic like a handy cam. Who gives a flying rats @ss who makes it.

[Walter_Graff]

Just clarifying when someone says its a "pro" camera. It's a shoulder mounted camera. Years ago every consumer camera was a shoulder mounted camera. Does that make them professional?

[Tibby]

I have not used a piece of JVC equipment since I was in school in 1982. I've never seen JVC used professionally anywhere since then. None of the professional equipment places I deal with even sell JVC because it is a consumer division. This new entry is marketed as "pro" but that is just that, a marketing term.


Walter,

I use a JVC 3 CCD S-VHS camera with a Fujinon detachable lens for Legal Videography. This is my profession. I get paid for it. It isn't used to tape weddings and the camera itself is designed to serve specific professional applications. Thus it is a "pro" camera. So to say JVC isn't used in "pro" circles is a misconception.

I suppose this is a consumer camera?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=398430&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I suppose that whole "professional" thing in the description is just marketing.

"Grandma's looking for a camcorder"

"Really, I think granny should pick up one of them JVC GY-DV5000 cameras"

:huh:

[Walter_Graff]

I consider a pro camera to have at least a 2/3 inch chip, to cost at least $15k, to use a format such as DVCAM, Beta, or higher, sold at professional sales facilities, and having a track record with boradcasting of some type (eg news, etc). The camera you link to is a pro style ENG camera. I would not call it a consumer but a prosumer camera. It's a great prosumer camera for the money and I like that it is 2/3 inch rather than 1/3. I think the 12 bit processor makes this a great value for the money. That makes a big difference. Forgive me if I am ignorant but I consider pro equipment as something broadcasters use. This does not mean what you do is not a profession or that you are not a professional. It's just what I am used to. Your milage may vary.

[Tibby]

Well if the equipment in question is used specifically for professional purposes. That would make it "pro" (i.e. earning an income) as opposed to amateur (i.e. a hobby). Your definition of "pro" is strictly based on a bias, your personal bias as to what makes something "pro".
I've seen broadcasting types shooting with lesser cameras then the one I lnked to above.

Nobody's gonna use the camera above to shoot little billy's birthday.

[mezelf27]

Walter; ever heard of JVC's Digital S? Perhaps nice to know that the biggest broadcaster in Europe (BBC) has always used the JVC GY-DV700 (16/9; 2/3inch, over20k$ - in fact, BBC co-developed it...)?

JVC defenately has professional equipment. It has the no1 position for ENG in Europe it seems. (And now don't go saying, "that's Europe, we're better over here", because we've always shot in PAL as opposed to NTSC)....

[mmm]

VX2000, GL1 - they are prosumer cameras - they can be used by "professionals" and "consumers." I have seen people with no video experience buy a VX2000/GL1 to video the kids. I have also seen both cameras used in broadcast to a very high level.

Once you start adding XLRs to a camera, it becomes a strictly "pro" camera because consumers will not be buying it. By your definition Walter, a 1/2" camera is "prosumer" - please, find me one consumer who shoots with a 1/2" camera. That is a ridiculous definition. That level of cameras already has a classification - "2/3 inch camera."

2/3" cameras are obviously superior, but please don't come to a board like this and discredit the tools that many here use to make a living. It doesn't bother me, but could be viewed as pretty derogatory. By that I mean suggesting someone isn't using a professional camera suggests they are not a professional.

[OliverM]

I don't think Walter tried to step on any toes here.
And actually I kinda think the same. Off course that doesn't mean that these cams can't be used in a pro environment. I make a decent living with my DVX working for localTV here in Belgium. All I mean is that for this price and with these capabilities the 'pro' attitude of the JVC camera is kinda BS for me. Actually (like I said somewhere else on this forum) I rather have a handycam formfactor, a decent tripod and a decent shouldermount at this pricepoint. Looks less pro, but it's got more versatility and delivers better image for me.
I found the Canon (supposing its like the rest of the XL series) and the JVC to be front heavy, so no decent shouldercams, and the interchangeable lense sounds nice but then you're just about there.
Don't get me wrong though. Because these cams don't appeal to me doesn't mean they won't fit your needs. But the other cameras are as much (or less) pro as the JVC and the Canon IMO.

[OliverM]

Once you start adding XLRs to a camera, it becomes a strictly "pro" camera because consumers will not be buying it.

I kinda follow you on this one. All these cameras can be used in a pro environment.
Real consumers want a full auto, really small camera they can take on trips and birthdays without much hassle. However, for me a real pro device is a broadcast standard one: Beta, DVCpro, XDCAM, ...
I don't include DVcam because a DVX for instance offers you the same thing (locked audio, XLR, timecode). Ok a DVCAM runs its tape faster, but other than that its just DV with a better name to it.

[mmm]

I kinda follow you on this one. All these cameras can be used in a pro environment.
Real consumers want a full auto, really small camera they can take on trips and birthdays without much hassle. However, for me a real pro device is a broadcast standard one: Beta, DVCpro, XDCAM, ...
I don't include DVcam because a DVX for instance offers you the same thing (locked audio, XLR, timecode). Ok a DVCAM runs its tape faster, but other than that its just DV with a better name to it.

I should think that there are as many broadcast shows using sub 2/3" cameras as there are which don't. I doubt a PD150 (for an example of a low-end pro camera) has had a single sale to anyone in a none pro enviroment.

These cheaper cameras are obviously inferior, but by saying they are not "pro" you are inferring the operator is not a professional. Some of the best footage I have ever seen has come from VERY talented people using lower-end cameras. Sometimes they are the correct tool for a professional to use, be it though budget, portability or discreetness.

[brianluce]

i'd hate to tell the guy who spends +20k on a jvc hd100 (lens upgrade, firestore, follow focus, blah blah) that his camera isn't professional. he'd probably beat you over the head with it. oh wait, maybe he wouldn't because the camera would get damaged and he wouldn't be able to shoot his son's bar mitzvah.

[OliverM]

These cheaper cameras are obviously inferior, but by saying they are not "pro" you are inferring the operator is not a professional. Some of the best footage I have ever seen has come from VERY talented people using lower-end cameras. Sometimes they are the correct tool for a professional to use, be it though budget, portability or discreetness.

Nono, I did say they can be used in a pro environment. And by that I mean that in the right case and handeled by the right people these cams are no doubt pro tools (not the software :) ). Like I said, I use a DVX also. Because it meets the requirements right now and I know what I'm doing with it. I just didn't agree with the JVC being the only pro camera among this bunch. It's as much (and less) pro as the rest for me.
Off course the operator is the big deal with ANY camera. Give somebody that can shoot the most pathetic camera ever built and he or she will still shoot better than a clueless guy with a much better cam. Can't argue there.

[Walter_Graff]

As a broadcast pro I strive for the best I can. That is not to say that I don't use a DVX100 currently to get the wide shot of a makeover show I do for HGTV, or that MTV doesn't use Sony HDV cameras, but when it comes to standards always starting with the best you can is a great idea and maintains a higher standard.

It's not that we could not shoot a program on a DVX, but we'd rather use more robust formats and equipment that simply raises the bar on what our outcome looks like and for reliable operation. I'm not trying nor have I ever mentioned anything about what makes a person pro, simply what is a professional standard camera. Take those Roscotronics lights. I ordered one of these fixtures (G-200) some time ago to see what they were all about. I added it to my light kit and proceeded to use it with other more professionally made fixtures. It no longer is in my kit as it suffered after some time and I could not keep it working anymore. (Doors got bent and loose, lamp terminals pitted and power cord intermittent.) So if I had no budget, I would use them if they were all I can afford, but more professionally designed lights handle the rigors of real world use better. It's sort of like the women who came into one of our used car dealerships the other day. She was buying junkers every 6 months to a year for $2500. We offered her a 2005 car with less than 14k on the odometer and a warranty for that car as long as she owned it. The payments were $280 a month. She needed to be talked into it because she could not understand that $280 a month was a better deal than buying a junker every six months for a few grand which had no guarantee.

XLRs don't make a camera pro camera rather they make it a camera that can be marketed a different way. Prosumer is defined as a camera that is between consumer and pro and that is what these cameras we discuss are. Prosumer is like comparing a lesser made light to a truly professional light. Pro equipment uses different transports, much higher end electronics, much better lenses, and larger CCDs and offers different features and is designed for abuse of everyday use. DV cameras have a head life of less than 200 hours. My Betacam has gone for 12 years of a hundred thousand hours of use without a head change. So who cares?

Well about the only thing I care about are standards, not what you use the camera for, or what defines you as a pro. DVCAM is a format that found some use in broadcast television, not because it was good, but because it was cheap and in some cases (like remote news operations, small so fit a niche). In fact Sony had a heck of a time when news folks wanted to us DVCAM because it couldn't be edited as it had audio sync problems inn the beginning. So Sony worked hard and fast in the beginning to fix that so it could be used for something it wasn't designed for. BUt today while News organizations will buy these camera as throwaways or back up, they are not the first line pro cameras used for daily work. I base my pro equipment list on the broadcast world I work in so if you do weddings, or court cases, then you are basing your pro list on what you do. They will be substantially different. Neither of our lists is better or worse, just different.

So my list would include everything from a Panasonic AJ-D700 to a Sony F-950 or any camera or piece of equipment found on a professional rental list such as what http://www.lvrusa.com/RentalCatalog.cfm offers. That is not to ay a DVX100 would be my first choice for a TV program, it would not. But like my HGTV example the size of the camera makes for a nice camera I can throw up on high tripod and record a room as it's being made over with. For the rest of the stuff involving people I use a betacam.

By handing a DV camera to a producer, production companies cut thousands of dollars off their budgets. They still get pictures but often pictures that lack depth and often pictures that don't look as good as a better camera operated by a person who dedicates their profession to it might look. Does it mater for a program like American Chopper? yes and no. No because one might say the content doesn't need a $40k camera. Yes because with each program that goes the cheap route, we loose the quality that we used to obtain (I see it clearly) and we lesson everyones importance. What does that mean? A producer used to get paid $500 a day to produce. He worked with a dedicated camera crew that specialized in making pictures, and doing it well. Now he is given a camera and told to do that same thing for the same money. It's tough enough to produce a segment but to then also have to make good pictures pushes folks talent and often means something has to give, either in the producing end or the shooting end.

And the biggest effect? Overall everyone looses out in television. Whereas we used to produce a fantastic looking show that is well produced for say $25k and episode, now we only have $13k and episode and everyone in that chain of production from talent to the shows executive producer makes a lot less and works a lot more to make up for not having enough in the first place.

Many of you here might not understand it here on what is more a prosumer board but it's a cheapening of every aspect of a profession. In the end it means less people will be able to get work and those that do will not be paid what they are worth. For a producer like me, it is more of a challenge to maintain quality but the positive side for me is it means I have to work harder to prove everyone wrong which helps propagate the problem further because when I succeed it sets the bar lower by showing that it can be done. I am about to start up a second season of a program I produce for The Fine Living Channel. We shoot the program on Betacam. Overall our first season budget was almost half of what it should be. But all of use from production to edit worked out of love and made it look like a $30k show. It paid off as we created a program for half the money it should have cost and they raised the budget on the second season to a more livable cost. What we lost the first season leaves bit of bad taste as we worked so hard and didn't get much for the effort. But a second season helps clean up that taste. And this year I have more budget for new equipment like a jib and steadicam for the program. But it would be nice to have more folks on the roster but we simply can't hire more which means that cutting out the budget leaves us with less and that is bad for everyone, namely the 100 resumes a month I get for folks looking for work.

[mezelf27]

Well, it's just your defenition, so we can leave it at that (although, it's contracted of 2 words and indicates another meaning). Whatever you describe as pro and non-pro is fine.

BUT, since when doesn't JVC produce PRO? DIGITAL S is a very robust 1/2inch form factor 4:2:2 system. You're not calling that pro-sumer are you? Not even to your standards. The JVC GY-DV700 is the *choice* of the biggest broadcaster in Europe...

It's not because you might not be fully aware of the complete *pro* video gear landscape you can make some assumptions... There are 3 pro video manufacturers: JVC, panasonic and SONY. Ikegami seems out of the equation...

[mgalvan]

As a broadcast pro I strive for the best I can. That is not to say that I don't use a DVX100 currently to get the wide shot of a makeover show I do for HGTV, or that MTV doesn't use Sony HDV cameras, but when it comes to standards always starting with the best you can is a great idea and maintains a higher standard.

It's not that we could not shoot a program on a DVX, but we'd rather use more robust formats and equipment that simply raises the bar on what our outcome looks like and for reliable operation. I'm not trying nor have I ever mentioned anything about what makes a person pro, simply what is a professional standard camera. Take those Roscotronics lights. I ordered one of these fixtures (G-200) some time ago to see what they were all about. I added it to my light kit and proceeded to use it with other more professionally made fixtures. It no longer is in my kit as it suffered after some time and I could not keep it working anymore. (Doors got bent and loose, lamp terminals pitted and power cord intermittent.) So if I had no budget, I would use them if they were all I can afford, but more professionally designed lights handle the rigors of real world use better. It's sort of like the women who came into one of our used car dealerships the other day. She was buying junkers every 6 months to a year for $2500. We offered her a 2005 car with less than 14k on the odometer and a warranty for that car as long as she owned it. The payments were $280 a month. She needed to be talked into it because she could not understand that $280 a month was a better deal than buying a junker every six months for a few grand which had no guarantee.

XLRs don't make a camera pro camera rather they make it a camera that can be marketed a different way. Prosumer is defined as a camera that is between consumer and pro and that is what these cameras we discuss are. Prosumer is like comparing a lesser made light to a truly professional light. Pro equipment uses different transports, much higher end electronics, much better lenses, and larger CCDs and offers different features and is designed for abuse of everyday use. DV cameras have a head life of less than 200 hours. My Betacam has gone for 12 years of a hundred thousand hours of use without a head change. So who cares?

Well about the only thing I care about are standards, not what you use the camera for, or what defines you as a pro. DVCAM is a format that found some use in broadcast television, not because it was good, but because it was cheap and in some cases (like remote news operations, small so fit a niche). In fact Sony had a heck of a time when news folks wanted to us DVCAM because it couldn't be edited as it had audio sync problems inn the beginning. So Sony worked hard and fast in the beginning to fix that so it could be used for something it wasn't designed for. BUt today while News organizations will buy these camera as throwaways or back up, they are not the first line pro cameras used for daily work. I base my pro equipment list on the broadcast world I work in so if you do weddings, or court cases, then you are basing your pro list on what you do. They will be substantially different. Neither of our lists is better or worse, just different.

So my list would include everything from a Panasonic AJ-D700 to a Sony F-950 or any camera or piece of equipment found on a professional rental list such as what http://www.lvrusa.com/RentalCatalog.cfm offers. That is not to ay a DVX100 would be my first choice for a TV program, it would not. But like my HGTV example the size of the camera makes for a nice camera I can throw up on high tripod and record a room as it's being made over with. For the rest of the stuff involving people I use a betacam.

By handing a DV camera to a producer, production companies cut thousands of dollars off their budgets. They still get pictures but often pictures that lack depth and often pictures that don't look as good as a better camera operated by a person who dedicates their profession to it might look. Does it mater for a program like American Chopper? yes and no. No because one might say the content doesn't need a $40k camera. Yes because with each program that goes the cheap route, we loose the quality that we used to obtain (I see it clearly) and we lesson everyones importance. What does that mean? A producer used to get paid $500 a day to produce. He worked with a dedicated camera crew that specialized in making pictures, and doing it well. Now he is given a camera and told to do that same thing for the same money. It's tough enough to produce a segment but to then also have to make good pictures pushes folks talent and often means something has to give, either in the producing end or the shooting end.

And the biggest effect? Overall everyone looses out in television. Whereas we used to produce a fantastic looking show that is well produced for say $25k and episode, now we only have $13k and episode and everyone in that chain of production from talent to the shows executive producer makes a lot less and works a lot more to make up for not having enough in the first place.

Many of you here might not understand it here on what is more a prosumer board but it's a cheapening of every aspect of a profession. In the end it means less people will be able to get work and those that do will not be paid what they are worth. For a producer like me, it is more of a challenge to maintain quality but the positive side for me is it means I have to work harder to prove everyone wrong which helps propagate the problem further because when I succeed it sets the bar lower by showing that it can be done. I am about to start up a second season of a program I produce for The Fine Living Channel. We shoot the program on Betacam. Overall our first season budget was almost half of what it should be. But all of use from production to edit worked out of love and made it look like a $30k show. It paid off as we created a program for half the money it should have cost and they raised the budget on the second season to a more livable cost. What we lost the first season leaves bit of bad taste as we worked so hard and didn't get much for the effort. But a second season helps clean up that taste. And this year I have more budget for new equipment like a jib and steadicam for the program. But it would be nice to have more folks on the roster but we simply can't hire more which means that cutting out the budget leaves us with less and that is bad for everyone, namely the 100 resumes a month I get for folks looking for work.

Yes, I agree here. I think a lot of people on this board come from a background of work that is different from broadcast work and may not see this perspective. As I am involved in the aspects of production on many different levels (my fulltime job is with CNN, I do event videography on the side from time to time, and I have worked on film projects), I kind of have the perspective of of a multitude of people on this board. Though in broadcasting, you may see the use of many 1/3" chip cameras (CNN still uses PD150's on shoots), there are usually reasons behind it (mainly for cost effectiveness or size of camera). But for the most part, everything is shot using 2/3" chip cameras because it is of overall higher quality. This will not change and there is a "standard" of quality that has been set by using these types of cameras.

When it coems to event work, I use my XL2. Excellent tool for th jobs ... but these jobs have different standards and different "quality" requirements, allowing the use of cameras such as these to be fully acceptable. Sure, stuff from these cameras can be "broadcast quality," but with the heavy use of 2/3" cameras in broadcast, why take the step down in quality if it isn't really necessary. Each type of market has had some sort of "standard" set when it comes to their tools. But that doesn't mean your abilities and skills are any different ... You know what you know and your skills and abilitiies are the same whether you are shooting with the DVX100a or the Sony F950. Its just about applying those skills properly and to the most effectiveness given the tools at hand.

[stephenlnoe]

:grin: You guys have jumped over the cliff!

The reference was to the JVC HD-100 being a pro-camera. Pro in the sense that it is, in fact, designed and layed out (ergonomically) in line with most professional cameras. It is not a point and shoot camera, a.k.a. handycam.

With all due respect, who cares about 1/3 or 2/3 or JVC or Sony. The reference is to the layout and operation of the camera only.

[brianluce]

affordable equipment puts production capability into the hands of a lot more people which provides more diverse programming. in the long run that's a good thing. yeah, i know, it also means a lot more BAD programmng as well. but why should the power of media be only in the hands of rich guys and corporations?

it's almost like saying only people who can afford 50,000 dollar computers should be allowed to write novels.

walter, all your posts, though obviously informed, have the smell of bitter grapes. I don't understand where you are coming from, one minute you're bitching about newcommers poaching on your turf with cheap cameras and ipods the next minute you're providing valuable hard won information to these same fresh face poachers who will presumably bid you out of a job.

[OliverM]

A small pebble can make big waves I guess. :)
I agree that the ergonomics of the JVC are more pro oriented. But that doesn't make the other cameras less for me.
Now back on topic: my choice stays the HVX for reasons explained in my posts above. Now its wait'n'see if it delivers...

[Nathyn]

affordable equipment puts production capability into the hands of a lot more people which provides more diverse programming. in the long run that's a good thing. yeah, i know, it also means a lot more BAD programmng as well. but why should the power of media be only in the hands of rich guys and corporations?.

I was going to bring this point up. The fact is the market is changing and you will see "PROsumer" cameras become the equipment of "PROs". It already is. Walter is right, the productions will become cheaper but this is where people make their mistakes. It's not about you. As a camera person you're somewhat expandable. That even includes me. Follow me on this one:

SD televisions only has so much resolution. Shooting with a high quality 2/3 Chip cam is great. Your problem is...(drumroll please) 90% of the populace are not videographers. Tell the average guy about what we talk about they'll simply start trying to use the 2nd hand knowledge to impress friends and seem smart. Basically the entertainment/news gathering field is about money. Money is made from providing entertainment that gets viewship so advertisers can will pay money to place ads on the show. Any skilled cameraman can do the job, and there are plenty. Some better than others. 1/2, 2/3 1/3 chip means nothing to the average person.

Now if a show cost $25,000 to shoot, and I can shoot it at broadcast quality for $15,000 business basic math says $15,000 it is. That's technology. I have an editing system in my bedroom cost about $2000 with everything. Years ago the only place I could see an editing system at school. It cost $25,000 for the unit. Premeire was out sure but it wasn't what it is today.

I could shoot a whole television show on the DVX100 at 24p (think Miami Vice or Law and Order) and if it was lit well your average person wouldn't know the difference. When I shot my first film (DVX100 30p) the aqusitions person didn't know it was video, it took people who really knew to say "that was shot on video." This is what we all need to remember and you will see more and more show (especially with reality shows be the rage now) use the three chip 1/3 cameras. Big distributors are opening "digital divisions" to aquire digital product which means films shot on the DVX, XL and others. The day people said would never come is coming and wishful thinking doesn't seem to be stopping it. Remember Kodak tried to tell people you couldn't capture emotions like film does with 24p video. (Yet many capture emotion on 60i soap operas everyday).

-Nate

[mmm]

I was going to bring this point up. The fact is the market is changing and you will see "PROsumer" cameras become the equipment of "PROs". It already is. Walter is right, the productions will become cheaper but this is where people make their mistakes. It's not about you. As a camera person you're somewhat expandable. That even includes me. Follow me on this one:

SD televisions only has so much resolution. Shooting with a high quality 2/3 Chip cam is great. Your problem is...(drumroll please) 90% of the populace are not videographers. Tell the average guy about what we talk about they'll simply start trying to use the 2nd hand knowledge to impress friends and seem smart. Basically the entertainment/news gathering field is about money. Money is made from providing entertainment that gets viewship so advertisers can will pay money to place ads on the show. Any skilled cameraman can do the job, and there are plenty. Some better than others. 1/2, 2/3 1/3 chip means nothing to the average person.

Now if a show cost $25,000 to shoot, and I can shoot it at broadcast quality for $15,000 business basic math says $15,000 it is. That's technology. I have an editing system in my bedroom cost about $2000 with everything. Years ago the only place I could see an editing system at school. It cost $25,000 for the unit. Premeire was out sure but it wasn't what it is today.

I could shoot a whole television show on the DVX100 at 24p (think Miami Vice or Law and Order) and if it was lit well your average person wouldn't know the difference. When I shot my first film (DVX100 30p) the aqusitions person didn't know it was video, it took people who really knew to say "that was shot on video." This is what we all need to remember and you will see more and more show (especially with reality shows be the rage now) use the three chip 1/3 cameras. Big distributors are opening "digital divisions" to aquire digital product which means films shot on the DVX, XL and others. The day people said would never come is coming and wishful thinking doesn't seem to be stopping it. Remember Kodak tried to tell people you couldn't capture emotions like film does with 24p video. (Yet many capture emotion on 60i soap operas everyday).

-Nate

Well put Nate.

With all this television being shot on 1/3" camcorders, how long before cinema follows?

Presently a film like 28 Days Later is the exception, but I think that could change... one day... these cameras are just getting so good!

[jrv3034]

...Yet many capture emotion on 60i soap operas everyday...

I don't know if I'd call that emotion, but it's a good point.

[Nathyn]

I don't know if I'd call that emotion, but it's a good point.

:)

[AshG]

1/3" CCD cams will never ever make a big dent in television or movies period endstop. There will be some penetration and sure, for a second or third cam in the field or mounted on a car...no argument. A 2/3" CCD camera like the Varicam is just far far far superior in every way outside of portability. I am currently working on 2 national shows that will launch early next year, one shooting with a Varicam and one with an XL2... same budget on both but one requires 100% field work and more travel.


ash =o)

[mmm]

1/3" CCD cams will never ever make a big dent in television or movies period endstop. There will be some penetration and sure, for a second or third cam in the field or mounted on a car...no argument. A 2/3" CCD camera like the Varicam is just far far far superior in every way outside of portability. I am currently working on 2 national shows that will launch early next year, one shooting with a Varicam and one with an XL2... same budget on both but one requires 100% field work and more travel.




I agree with you Ash, I don't think they will take over from larger cameras, BUT they have already made a reasonable dent (or contribution might be a better word) in television shooting. A lot of shows, especially news, use 1/3" cameras.

I am wondering if cinema will follow. I don't expect to see Spiderman 7 shot on a HVX300, but I should think a lot of smaller, less effects driven films will not see the need in spending $100,000s on a camera if a $10,000 set up looks perfectly good.

[Antoine_Fabi]

AshG,

You worked with the Varicam and the XL2 ?

How do you like the XL2's image quality ?

[Nathyn]

I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood doesn't use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined.

-Nate

[Antoine_Fabi]

For us, comparing the cost of film vs Hd or SD is relevant.

...but...

I thought that film, as a format, was a very very small part of big productions cost...

[Barry_Green]

I thought that film, as a format, was a very very small part of big productions cost...
In terms of the average $60M to $80M cost of a Hollywood picture, the actual film costs are microscopic.

[ChuckS]

I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood does use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined.

-Nate

Depending on what statistics you choose to believe, I agree with you - Hollywood is in trouble. However there problems have nothing to do with how much they spend on film processing, technology, or the costs of a camera. You could produce a movie for free and the twenty something MBA's who are grossly miss managing this industry would still screw it up. :thumbsup: Most of them wouldn't know a good script if they were clubbed to death with one. Oh, and a I think another good strategy to make their bottom line look good would be to raise ticket prices to $15 so they can talk about record box office reciepts. :angry:

I think that the best independent film makers can hope for is that this equipment keeps getting cheaper and better so that although they might not be able to compete at the box office they can compete on par with the look of a film but KICK the STUDIOS ASS with a compelling message. Something that an audience over the age of eight would like to pay to see. :huh:

[Walter_Graff]

"I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood does use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined."

Only problem is that the camera budget for a Hollywood film is about 1-2% of the total budget. You will not see any cutting in that area because it doesn;t need to be cut.

[mmm]

If you are paying Tom Hanks $25,000,000 (I think it was actually about $85,000,000) for Saving Private Ryan by the time he got his points), why shoot him with a $6,000 camera?

One reason that is the case is if you WANT that type of look - eg, Blair Witch, 28 Days Later, Collateral (to a digital look extent).

[Nathyn]

True but I'm the type to shoot and unknown or B-listers for $50,000 and market and promote my own film. It's been done before. Besides look at March of the Penguins. It cleaned up at the box office. I don't need 20,000,000 stars to make a good film, only million dollar suckers do.

-Nate

[SquidLips]

True Nate...the door is opened now more than ever for unknown artists and some innovative project. The camera and format IS important but not the end all. Like I was mentioning elsewhere, right now video shot projects are just regarded as "cheap" movies made by those who can't afford "real film". Even the more expensive varicams and F900s are looked at the same way unless you are Rodriguez, Spileberg, etc.

My hope is....that more people will take their time to really try and make a quality film and that way when more video films flood the market with great plots, acting, etc., the stigma will fade away and the shooting format will only be just a preference the filmmaker makes (at least in theory as many will still choose to do so for budgetary reasons).

At the last AFM, I saw maybe 20 films trying to get sold on video (most action or horror) and they were all pretty bad. About half were digital with film look and the others were 24P. It was because they were inexperienced or untalented and so the movies lacked. And it's kind of ironic because right at a time when new filmakers can go "Hey, now I have a chance to make a movie and get it out there" the influx of people doing it has created a flood of amateur/cliched/stale movies that just go unsold and as a result, hits those few talented ones on the head.

But...my feeling is learn your craft on video, get great and then the risk to reward is so much better down the line when you start playing with more expensive "toys". I am shooting a half million dollar Sci Fi film next month but then in January I am doing a 20K comedy. The first on 2 F900s and the 2nd on (hopefully) an HVX or XLHD. Depending on which way the camera reviews fall.....I am still learining about the video technology myself so it's all pretty new. But I know I run into trouble with sales every time I mention the film is shot on video.

[Zig_Zigman]

March of the Penguins had a 4+ million budget...

[Nathyn]

March of the Penguins had a 4+ million budget...
You do understand in Hollywood 4 million is a low budget indie.
At the last AFM, I saw maybe 20 films trying to get sold on video (most action or horror) and they were all pretty bad. About half were digital with film look and the others were 24P. It was because they were inexperienced or untalented and so the movies lacked. And it's kind of ironic because right at a time when new filmakers can go "Hey, now I have a chance to make a movie and get it out there" the influx of people doing it has created a flood of amateur/cliched/stale movies that just go unsold and as a result, hits those few talented ones on the head.
Either way in the end the only things that will sale are the things the people want or that Hollywood thinks they want. If you shoot a film for $50,000 and market it well you could turn a real profit even if you only make an million at the box office you've made a lot more than you spent.

-Nate

[videoteque73]

You do understand in Hollywood 4 million is a low budget indie
In Europe 4 million dollars films are ultra expensive. At least in Spain and Italy, there must be like 10 films which have had this budget... :evil:

[esperman]

hell, just getting your investment back is great

[leofish]

I was at the RESFest in San Francisco this weekend at Beyond DV Seminar. I saw the HD images from the XL H1 and HVX200. The optics on the Canon are very good but they did a trick by outputting directly thu HDSDI port to a pana deck (HD DVCPRO) to attain a 100mbs (same as panasonic). HDV is 25mbs so the image from Canon was less compressed via the port.

I also noticed that Canon juttered..the image juttered or lagged.

I also held the HVX200 which was quite portable and I prefer the form factor. The Pana is in a different league because it is the only HD camera that is not HDV. There will also be less issues in post. I like 24p, variable frame, form factor. The H1 looked the best of the bunch of 5 for HDV. The Sony A1 (the small single chip HD handycam) looks like it would for conspicuous shots or helmet cams....

[Mike Parker]

Limiting your definition of "professional" to what broadcasters use is somewhat, well, limiting. That seems to imply that History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, CNN and ESPN are a bunch of bumbling yahoos who wouldn't recognise a "professional" camera if they ended up in bed with one.

Now, about JVC. About 20 years ago, I started my freelance business with a JVC KY-310 camera and a CR-4700 3/4" VCR. I lived in Kansas City and shot literally hundereds of stories for ABC News with that camera and a KY-320B and KY-950. Professional enough for you?

I shot most of the pilot for the primetime series, Rescue 911, with my JVC KY-950. Arnold Shapiro was sufficently impressed with my shooting and my camera to hire me to work on the CBS series. I guess this also qualifies as professional.

When Fox NewsChannel cranked up in 1996 (I came in with the furniture in the LA bureau) the NY headquarters were built around JVC Digital-S equipmment. Must be professional here, too.

Over the years, JVC has made some pretty decent equipment. Imagewise, they're not up there with Ikegami, Sony or Panasonic, but their equipment is in daily use by cable channels and broadcasters. 'Nuff said.

Mike Parker
www.mp-tv.com

[PANA-MAN]

I was at the RESFest in San Francisco this weekend at Beyond DV Seminar. I saw the HD images from the XL H1 and HVX200. The optics on the Canon are very good but they did a trick by outputting directly thu HDSDI port to a pana deck (HD DVCPRO) to attain a 100mbs (same as panasonic). HDV is 25mbs so the image from Canon was less compressed via the port.

I'm going to ResFest in LA but noticed no demonstration of the XL-H1 on schedule, the Panny, yes, but no H1. Hope I'm missing something as I would really like to see the footage.