Canon Doesn't Think Consumer Cameras Should have Raw Video

[Guest]

I'm probably going to get beat up for this but I kind of wish the tools stayed expensive.

There are so many other aspects. There is also a much larger demand for video, in particular the low end segment. So, there are also more people asking for services, even when they have no budget. There is a decentralization advertising dollars, and increase of content, etc.

Yes, many clients are seeing what these new projects look like, but the time, team-power, budget, planning, or experience required to pull off a project effectively is still valuable and expensive. Sadly, once you take on one low paying gig, it kind of snowballs from there. It not only sets a precedent, but makes one more desperate during the lulls.

There are not only lost opportunities, there are also many new ones.

But there is too much hype around these cameras. iphones and instagram are teaching people to either do it themselves, or at least have an appreciation for how difficult it is to shoot an impacting image. I am tired of hearing how good a picture looks because of my camera. The camera plays a part, it is an enabler, but only a part, and that part is also a small part of the budget, so it should not drastically effect budget of a real project.

Though, in truth, there are times when I would love to go back to the mysterious days of film sometimes, where there was something magical about the process, but I feel tech today allows us some different ways of working, and that is fun and exciting to me. Though, even that doesn't replace the fact that people are being under bid and under paid. Something has to change, and keeping gear expensive is just hurting us on both sides.

 

[Gillvane]

I have to agree here. Just because somebody wakes up and decides they want to make films for a living doesn't mean the tools should be free or dirt cheap. I have been in this business a long time and have seen lots of interesting changes happen when it comes to price structure with clients. Basically the industry is being destroyed by cheap gear. Now I like affordable gear compared to the next guy but we as a community have become obsessed with expecting $100,000.00 quality from a $1,200.00 camera. On top of that we are even starting to complain how $1,200.00 is too high of a price point.

I'm glad these cheaper tools have opened up doors for a lot of people but it is also forcing a expectation from a lot of clients that they can get a $10,000.00 production for $500.00. Yeah some of us laugh at that but somebody on this forum will take those jobs for that money and do a killer job on it to get the experience and build up their portfolio. Eventually all clients will want that for $500.00. Eventually all of us have to start doing that level of work for $500.00. Which in effect makes us want the gear to be cheaper. The gear gets cheaper and now there is more raw talent out there to compete with.

Talent is king but many clients are starting to realize the talent pool is much larger now than it was 10 years ago. This means they know they can low ball projects because there are enough people out there with really capable tools and amazing talent that eventually some poor sucker will take the job. It isn't all doom and gloom yet but the shift has already started.

I'm probably going to get beat up for this but I kind of wish the tools stayed expensive. Those of us who really want to use the tools will find a way. Renting is always an option but so many find that option appalling for whatever reason. For the frequency at which most of us upgrade our cameras I am willing to bet renting wouldn't be such a bad option. What about shared camera ownership? Like ride sharing programs. A small group can buy a camera together and schedule use of that camera. To be a good film maker you don't have to go to bed with your camera sitting on the pillow next to you.

I somewhat disagree. The cost of labor, just like the cost of goods, is driven by supply and demand. Your argument is that with expensive gear it was hard to get access to it, so fewer people were trained, so that meant less supply, and therefore more expensive labor. Now the opposite is true, cheap gear, more people can be trained on it, so there is more supply, and therefore cheaper labor.

I think this is only true at the very low end of video production. Yes, you no longer need a Hasselblad and the experience to make it work to shoot weddings. Most videographers with a decent HD camera can produce a satisfactory wedding video. No offense to wedding video makers, I acknowledge they can be very talented at what they do.

However, would you hire the average wedding video maker to direct The Artist or Argo rather than Michel Hazanavicius? Of course not. Would you hire a corporate video maker to be the DP on Shindler's List instead of Janusz Kaminski? No, of course not.

Because at the higher end of production it's not about training to use gear, it's about talent. There will always be stiff competition for the most talented artists. Talent is something you can nurture, something that needs tools to develop, but not necessarily something you can teach. Yes, there's more competition for doing corporate videos and wedding videos, and prices will probably be much lower than in the past for those gigs. But I don't think DPs or Directors are going to start making less money in Hollywood because lots of people have access to cheap gear and can learn how to use it competently.

Why do people want to own instead of rent? Because low/no budget film makers shoot on irregular schedules which make renting inefficient. Renting is efficient when you can rent for a week and shoot 12-14 hour days straight.

But that week straight of 12-14 hour days can easily turn into 3 months of shooting for the no/low budget film maker shooting a few hours here and there. By the time you paid for rentals (including shipping for people that don't live in L.A. or someplace with much of a rental camera business), you could easily buy the darn camera.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I somewhat disagree. The cost of labor, just like the cost of goods, is driven by supply and demand. Your argument is that with expensive gear it was hard to get access to it, so fewer people were trained, so that meant less supply, and therefore more expensive labor. Now the opposite is true, cheap gear, more people can be trained on it, so there is more supply, and therefore cheaper labor.

I think this is only true at the very low end of video production. Yes, you no longer need a Hasselblad and the experience to make it work to shoot weddings. Most videographers with a decent HD camera can produce a satisfactory wedding video. No offense to wedding video makers, I acknowledge they can be very talented at what they do.

However, would you hire the average wedding video maker to direct The Artist or Argo rather than Michel Hazanavicius? Of course not. Would you hire a corporate video maker to be the DP on Shindler's List instead of Janusz Kaminski? No, of course not.

Because at the higher end of production it's not about training to use gear, it's about talent. There will always be stiff competition for the most talented artists. Talent is something you can nurture, something that needs tools to develop, but not necessarily something you can teach. Yes, there's more competition for doing corporate videos and wedding videos, and prices will probably be much lower than in the past for those gigs. But I don't think DPs or Directors are going to start making less money in Hollywood because lots of people have access to cheap gear and can learn how to use it competently.

Why do people want to own instead of rent? Because low/no budget film makers shoot on irregular schedules which make renting inefficient. Renting is efficient when you can rent for a week and shoot 12-14 hour days straight.

But that week straight of 12-14 hour days can easily turn into 3 months of shooting for the no/low budget film maker shooting a few hours here and there. By the time you paid for rentals (including shipping for people that don't live in L.A. or someplace with much of a rental camera business), you could easily buy the darn camera.

You are only looking at two market segments. Low end and Hollywood. What about the middle corporate level. This is the industry that has been affected a lot. Cheap labor isn't always a good thing either. It is good for the bottom line for somebody but how does the cheap labor affect those performing the cheap labor? The fact is a lot of middle level production houses have had to close shop in recent years due to low ball competition. Yeah this is good for the newcomer who makes money doing what they love but it has also destabilized an industry that once had a steady job with steady pay, full time benefits, vacation, and most importantly health insurance. Those days are diminishing as we see the talent pool increase and the gear come down in price. I have worked for such companies who produced corporate video for clients such as Miller, John Deere and Harley Davidson. These are not small start-ups obviously and had some pretty decent marketing budgets. Now they get work done for a fraction of the cost which makes it harder for the production companies who work with these clients to pay for full time staff or offer benefits of any kind. Some of them who refuse to let go have implemented rolling lay-offs between client projects. Just an example of the new reality.

Indy film making is great and exciting but it is no where near a stable career to support a family with. The same sadly is starting to become true for a lot of other levels of video production. Sure at the extreme high end things may be ok for now but have you ever heard of what is happening to the visual effects industry in Hollywood? The cheap labor curse has already started happening there and it isn't pretty.

 

[Kholi]

Indy film making is great and exciting but it is no where near a stable career to support a family with. The same sadly is starting to become true for a lot of other levels of video production. Sure at the extreme high end things may be ok for now but have you ever heard of what is happening to the visual effects industry in Hollywood? The cheap labor curse has already started happening there and it isn't pretty.

The reality indeed.

It may be time to create a new and useful phone app!

 

[jimagine]

Ironically, if you've been in this biz for a while then you know that today, a $1200 camera can give you better quality than camera systems that cost $100k just a few years ago.
For instance, in order to get more of a 35mm look to our projects, just a few years ago we were mounting P&S Mini35 systems on the best video cameras available and shooting with cine primes.
Those systems were very expensive and very big, cumbersome and were capable of delivering as good an image as you could get on video for films.
But, of course, they were still recording in SD.
Today a camera like even the RX10, is delivering an image with full on video controls, that would have rocked the production world just a few years ago - never mind the ergonomics.

We're in a time of the great equalizer when it comes to creative and production.
My recording studio that used to require a large room literally filled with racks of gear, patch bays and a giant mixing console and cost 6 figures - today I can rival it in my study, on a 27" iMac running Digital Performer...on my 15" retina if I need.

I just finished a short educational film that's been in production for a few months.
Because of a lot of challenging circumstances, I chose to use a GH3 for the whole thing for the first time.
The camera and 3 primes I used cost a tiny fraction of most any number of systems I might have bought previously.
I used a new kit of tiny (iPad sized) LED lights for it as well - 10 of them, each running on $20 sony NPF batteries and giving me creative control that wouldn't be remotely possible without a much larger crew, big lighting controls, a generator, etc.
That whole kit cost about the tax on what I paid for a similar Litepanels kit a few years ago, and,as the trend continues with everything - they're brighter, and a tiny fraction of the size and weight of the Litepanels.

Bottom line is that there's been a tectonic shift in all things production in the last twenty years, and in film and video production in the past five.
Today, a good producer/director/DP could chose anything from a GH3 to an Alexa, and as far as the public is concerned, deliver a world class story.

I think it's awesome that things are shrinking in size and price and I've never had more fun or control, as a creative director.
What makes for good creative will always be the intangibles that don't come in a box from Japan or Australia at whatever price.
End of dissertation.

And I couldn't disagree with your last sentence more.
To be a great guitar player, photographer, film maker, painter, writer.... you do in fact have to have your creative tools 'on the pillow".
It's certainly how it's worked for every great creative I've ever known, any age, any discipline.

 

[Guest]

You are only looking at two market segments. Low end and Hollywood.

Indy film making is great and exciting but it is no where near a stable career to support a family with. The same sadly is starting to become true for a lot of other levels of video production. Sure at the extreme high end things may be ok for now but have you ever heard of what is happening to the visual effects industry in Hollywood? The cheap labor curse has already started happening there and it isn't pretty.

Truth. Sorry, yes, I see what you are saying now. Though, while some gear has come down in price, expectations have risen, and that requires more tools. So, while someone can show up with a camera and a tripod, there are now all kinds of requirements: jib, steadicam, sometimes even wireless monitors, etc which end up bringing the total gear package price back up. And on the other side, I am sure Harley is spreading their video budget thinner with more videos. But I am not really trying to argue against you. I agree, there are many low ballers out there. I am just wondering how to remedy the reality. I tend to think that once consumers have image quality that rivals film, there will be a more distinct difference between a pro and novice with gear.

But I see what you are talking about, the big budget middle ground is probably being hit pretty hard. I am starting to see that. Also, you are right, indie films are not a good for raising a family. And in that realm I have seen people working for less than minimum wage (how producers get away with it, I will find out), yet they feel obligated to do so time after time, just for the prestige of being on a film set, because they don't often end up anywhere, and eventually burn out, while they steal someone else's job or wages with their excitement, lack of dedication, and inexperience.

One of the difficult things is when new gear comes out and trying to use that, instead of what is cheap and good. Like using an HPX3700 instead of a 5d2 when shooting certain spots. And wanting a client to pay for the HPX3700, when an EX1 or GoPro is all they need.

We could go on and on. While cheap gear has unleashed the dreamers and those unhappy with their day job, it is also just the way things are going. I also embrace the idea that my mother could shoot pictures of her family with high fidelity images. I could care less about whether Michael Bay's film is shot on whatever, but for important things in my life, I would love it if when my family took a picture, there wasn't some blown out white spot, or orange skin.

The internet killed big budgets as much as cheap gear. But good digital cameras are yet to hit the market. Alexa, D800, BMC, and Dragon are all promising glimpses into what is coming in IQ, and smart phones are unleashing new processing potential for image making AI, but in the meantime we are still waiting to get quality cameras which rival the P&S 35mm cameras even from some of the best DSLR's available. We just need to stop saying that the 5d2 is good enough, or stop complaining. There is much more progress to be made in the digital 2d world. So, Alexa, and Red are still expensive, and it is the lowering of expectations with a crappy 5d2 image, that people are hyped into believing is good enough, which is tearing budgets in half. The cameras aren't even the main part of the budget. Strange how they are such an integral factor.

I do not mean to say that the engineers and companies making these digital cameras are anything short of geniuses. They are making some incredible progress. But they have not definitively improved image quality for the consumer, and the reality of cheaper, has already trickled in. It has impacted the video world. Now it is not the engineers job to fix that, it is the companies needing to respond to the new order and present circumstances. But that may include some of us switching careers too.

 

[Guest]

It may be time to create a new and useful phone app!

word

 

[Gillvane]

You are only looking at two market segments. Low end and Hollywood. What about the middle corporate level. This is the industry that has been affected a lot. Cheap labor isn't always a good thing either. It is good for the bottom line for somebody but how does the cheap labor affect those performing the cheap labor? The fact is a lot of middle level production houses have had to close shop in recent years due to low ball competition. Yeah this is good for the newcomer who makes money doing what they love but it has also destabilized an industry that once had a steady job with steady pay, full time benefits, vacation, and most importantly health insurance. Those days are diminishing as we see the talent pool increase and the gear come down in price.

.

I understand change is hard, but it would be very wasteful and inefficient to keep people in positions that are no longer needed instead of retraining them for a new job that contributes to the economy.

Here's a list of 10 jobs that are disappearing. Number 1 on the list? Postal workers. Of course it's because people use email now instead of snail mail. Technology can indeed be disruptive and require change and retraining for workers, but it's usually good for the consumer.

10 disappearing jobs in America

 

[Thomas Smet]

The reality indeed.

It may be time to create a new and useful phone app!

This is exactly why I shifted away from production to mobile app development. I am one of those people that like to have a full time job with benefits and stable pay. I still love what I do professional and it can be very rewarding. I now can look at film and video as a hobby or tools to enhance the marketing of mobile apps. I do sometimes miss the randomness and excitement but my wife sure doesn't.

 

[Gillvane]

So, Alexa, and Red are still expensive, and it is the lowering of expectations with a crappy 5d2 image, that people are hyped into believing is good enough, which is tearing budgets in half.

Go back and look at the corporate videos or soap operas that used to be good enough shot on SD video. The expectations have be raised quite a bit from those days, not lowered.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I understand change is hard, but it would be very wasteful and inefficient to keep people in positions that are no longer needed instead of retraining them for a new job that contributes to the economy.

Here's a list of 10 jobs that are disappearing. Number 1 on the list? Postal workers. Of course it's because people use email now instead of snail mail. Technology can indeed be disruptive and require change and retraining for workers, but it's usually good for the consumer.

10 disappearing jobs in America

Sure in theory but just how far can you train a large pool of workers and have the jobs ready for them? Do we honestly need 10x more people with business degrees that end up working in retail anyway. Technological fields that require training have a limit to how many people they can take on. Just because somebody gets a degree in a field or receives training no longer means they will find a job. At a certain point we will advance ourselves into unemployment. Technology is shrinking a lot of industries and we have yet to see the magical industries people are supposed to flock to. Even health care is starting to become over saturated in some areas.

This is why I don't see a problem with Canon leaving certain features for more expensive gear. Don't we all do that as well? Even on the wedding end are there not packages with different price points? If somebody wants a 3 camera wedding with all the bells and whistles don't they have to purchase the higher end package? Yet a lot of us complain that clients wants the "Gold" package content for the "Bronze" package price. Same difference really of Canon deciding to leave certain features in their "gold" camera as opposed to the "bronze" camera. Do any of us honestly tell a client you give me $1,200.00 and I will give you everything possible no matter what and never change you extra? On the wedding end clients could use the same argument. Well the Blackmagic wedding producer will do the "gold" wedding for the price of your "bronze" wedding and even throw in the cake for free so you should do it as well. You could try to explain to them that the Blackmagic wedding producer may not show up on time but they will not care.

 

[Guest]

Go back and look at the corporate videos or soap operas that used to be good enough shot on SD video. The expectations have be raised quite a bit from those days, not lowered.

I meant that in the context of a bigger budget not going for the best, but for buzz words, like "5D". If a corporation would have originally asked for the best, but is now asking for a dslr, that is a form of 'lowering' expectations. Original budgets afford scarlets and f3's, but producers hire dslr ops.

If you read it the way you quoted me, then I should have said the "settling" of expectations. Looking back at old soaps is also "settling" expectations. Yes, standards have been raised, and that is good, I hope. And only recently have we been actually able to get excited about video cameras. The future is looking good.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I meant that in the context of a bigger budget not going for the best, but for buzz words, like "5D". If a corporation would have originally asked for the best, but is now asking for a dslr, that is a form of 'lowering' expectations. Original budgets afford scarlets and f3's, but producers hire dslr ops.

If you read it the way you quoted me, then I should have said the "settling" of expectations. Looking back at old soaps is also "settling" expectations. Yes, standards have been raised, and that is good, I hope. And only recently have we been actually able to get excited about video cameras. The future is looking good.

Not sure if that is 100% true. There was a lot of mid level productions and lower level cable work shot on Beta SP that the 5D totally kills today. The fact is that the gap between prosumer and professional has shrunk insanely in the last couple of years. Outside of dynamic range a GH3 and GH2 can really hold its own compared to many high end cameras. I have shot with a Cinealta F900 and honestly would choose my GH3 over that any day. I have also shot with RED and while very nice and definetly a setp above the GH3 in terms of dynamic range and resolution but always felt side by side my GH2 and now GH3 could hold its own very well. 99% of the humans on the planet could not tell the difference between material shot on both. That compared to the difference between 1/3" SVHS and 2/3" BetaSP which was a much more obvious quality bump.

 

[Gillvane]

I meant that in the context of a bigger budget not going for the best, but for buzz words, like "5D". If a corporation would have originally asked for the best, but is now asking for a dslr, that is a form of 'lowering' expectations. Original budgets afford scarlets and f3's, but producers hire dslr ops.

If you read it the way you quoted me, then I should have said the "settling" of expectations. Looking back at old soaps is also "settling" expectations. Yes, standards have been raised, and that is good, I hope. And only recently have we been actually able to get excited about video cameras. The future is looking good.

There's never a perfect camera. They all have downsides. 5d is more light sensitive than a scarlet. If the situation calls for low light, scarlet may not be your best tool in the box for the job you're doing. It's like saying, which one is best, a hammer or a screw driver? Depends on if you have a nail or a screw.

Add Raw to the C100 and I think you're done as far as a reasonable cost camera that has most features you need if you don't have a Hollywood budget. I'm sure it's coming and not that far off.

 

[Guest]

There's never a perfect camera. They all have downsides. 5d is more light sensitive than a scarlet. If the situation calls for low light, scarlet may not be your best tool in the box for the job you're doing. It's like saying, which one is best, a hammer or a screw driver? Depends on if you have a nail or a screw.

Add Raw to the C100 and I think you're done as far as a reasonable cost camera that has most features you need if you don't have a Hollywood budget. I'm sure it's coming and not that far off.

Agreed

 

[Guest]

Not sure if that is 100% true. There was a lot of mid level productions and lower level cable work shot on Beta SP that the 5D totally kills today. The fact is that the gap between prosumer and professional has shrunk insanely in the last couple of years. Outside of dynamic range a GH3 and GH2 can really hold its own compared to many high end cameras. I have shot with a Cinealta F900 and honestly would choose my GH3 over that any day. I have also shot with RED and while very nice and definetly a setp above the GH3 in terms of dynamic range and resolution but always felt side by side my GH2 and now GH3 could hold its own very well. 99% of the humans on the planet could not tell the difference between material shot on both. That compared to the difference between 1/3" SVHS and 2/3" BetaSP which was a much more obvious quality bump.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, just your interpretation of what I was trying to say. But it doesn't really matter. Catch you on the next thread. I have been a bit unfocused today, haha. =)

 

[DBP]

This is why I don't see a problem with Canon leaving certain features for more expensive gear. Don't we all do that as well? Even on the wedding end are there not packages with different price points? If somebody wants a 3 camera wedding with all the bells and whistles don't they have to purchase the higher end package? Yet a lot of us complain that clients wants the "Gold" package content for the "Bronze" package price. Same difference really of Canon deciding to leave certain features in their "gold" camera as opposed to the "bronze" camera. Do any of us honestly tell a client you give me $1,200.00 and I will give you everything possible no matter what and never change you extra? On the wedding end clients could use the same argument. Well the Blackmagic wedding producer will do the "gold" wedding for the price of your "bronze" wedding and even throw in the cake for free so you should do it as well. You could try to explain to them that the Blackmagic wedding producer may not show up on time but they will not care.

I can understand why companies aren't totally honest, but some of the frustration stems from this I believe:

It makes business sense to mark up certain packages and products to make a profit...but it'd be nice if they called a spade a spade. Instead they'll try and sell us the line that it costs them 4000$ extra dollars to put X,Y and Z features in and that they are doing us a favor by barely skimming the top, profit-wise.

Pre GH1/2 hack and pre-magic lantern... Panasonic and Canon would try and defend their consumer/pro seperation by implying that the hardware is only capable so much and that it costs them that much more to bump it up the specs. Low and behold, the hacks have revealed that the hardware was capable all a long and that they intentionally cripple their products to protect the higher end.

Again, I can't really blame from a business sense but having that disingenuous business practice presented right in our faces rubbed some the wrong way. Kind of like how telecom companies will insist that long distance calling is so technologically expensive when it's really not. Trying to justify going for high profit margins.

But yeah, businesses and markets will always shift and change. Those who benefit will be happy and those who suffer will cry foul. It's the nature of the capitalistic society that we elect to live in. I can understand why hollywood productions might employ the use of an Alexa or Red, but I'm not going to feel bad if some company in town doing mid level corporate videos feels the need to own a red and can't produce better quality than me with a GH2. Many people feel entitled to cameras that their talents, budgets and markets don't warrant.

 

[maarek]

he stated that there was no technical reason for full frame cameras to be expensive...

Except there is. One of the biggest technical reasons is that you can only get a certain amount of sensors from one wafer.

Building costs for new fabrication processes and factories are high, for GPU/CPU's we are talking in the billions. CMOS plants maybe more cheaper but the fundamental fact is that the bigger the sensor (or cpu/gpu) the more space it takes from one wafer and thus more wafers have to be constructed. There is a huge difference between an APS-C sensor and fullframe on one wafer. Even bigger compared to 1/3" sensors.

CPU/GPU makers tend to bin big chips so they can sell defective ones too at lower prices but that's difficult to do with sensors.

The cost of the wafers we don't know so it's quite hard to predict prices. Also wafers keep improving and the amount of bad quality sensors thrown away is getting smaller all the time.

And is that one guy serious when he says an iPhone HDR is better than bracketing photos? Does he not know that HDR works by bracketing? And iPhone HDR sucks?

 

[maarek]

Pre GH1/2 hack and pre-magic lantern... Panasonic and Canon would try and defend their consumer/pro seperation by implying that the hardware is only capable so much and that it costs them that much more to bump it up the specs. Low and behold, the hacks have revealed that the hardware was capable all a long and that they intentionally cripple their products to protect the higher end.

So people actually speak face to face with the engineers/marketing people all the time?

"Intentionally" crippling is such a lame word. Yes, GPU makers intentionally sell GPU's at different prices even though they are basically the same. Nvidia has the GTX 780 ti and a new Tesla card with exactly the same chip (with a bit of intentional crippling). Other one is sold for gamers and the other one goes as Tesla K40 (same chip), except the price difference will be exorbitant. Yes the Tesla has more memory and unlocked pro-grade stuff in the chip. But it is still intentional crippling so big companies wouldn't buy their gamer cards.

Instead of saying "intentional crippling" you should say market differentiation. Pro guys with cams have different needs than soccer moms with consumer cams. Same with physics guys calculating stuff with GPU's. They don't need game features. Why sell the same stuff for both at the same price? That would be dumb.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

All this talk about the cost of equipment getting cheaper...what exactly is getting cheaper? Cameras, memory...what else? Lighting, audio, lenses, camera support/stabilization is staying about the same cost, and that's a very large chunk of a production's equipment. Software and computers have gone down in price from a long time ago, but from say a few years ago, cost about the same for a new computer (of course with better specs) or video software.

Memory actually isn't exactly getting cheaper for everybody because the newer cameras coming out are so memory intensive that, for example, five years ago the cost of having enough memory for a 5D was cheaper than the cost of memory to support a Black Magic shooting RAW today.

Going back to what I'd mentioned earlier about the future being consumer cameras with RAW video, I think that the gap between consumer cameras and high end cameras is continually shrinking, and will continue to, until eventually everyone can afford to own a very good quality camera (which is kind of already the case), while only professionals will be able to afford high end support gear to make the cameras and productions truly shine.