VaricamLT: "Field testing the Panasonic Varicam LT: a hands-on review for solo shooters"

[klk]

Let's not start on 35mm cameras either! 35mm sync cameras were not small nor light- especially with their 1000' recording media attached...

 

[CharlesPapert]

True, relatively speaking Karl--although, I'm sure you will agree that they too went through a downsizing process (Arri BLIV>535A>535B>ST>LT...Panavision Platinum>Milenium>XL2 etc)

 

[Eric Coughlin]

That is a bit of skewed history, Eric! Perhaps that reflects your personal experience but not if one is to compare the actual timeline of camera design apples to apples.

Well I was more referring to the low and mid-range markets which consists of most of the members of this forum. If we go further back than what I mentioned (DSLRs, in 2008), then the cameras were larger again, with those 1/3" cameras such as the DVX100 (2002), which this forum was founded on, and others such as the EX1, HVX200, and before those, Betacams and various broadcast sized cameras. So camera sizes tend to fluctuate over time for different markets, as opposed to going in just one direction (smaller).

If I were to make a generalization of users on this forum, I'd say that most users are using larger cameras now than they were in 2010-2011 when DSLRs were at their height.

Tracking individual manufacturers who have had multiple generations of digital cinema cameras makes this even more apparent, as each new camera shrinks from the previous generation. Arri D20/21>Alexa,>Amira>Mini is a good example. The REDOne was significantly larger and heavier than their current lineup (with larger sensors to boot)!

If we track those individual manufacturers, as I stated, Red now has the Panavision DXL which is basically a Red Weapon in a larger body, and is larger than the Red One, and Arri has the Alexa 65 which is larger than the Alexa. Of course Arri also has the Amira and Mini so as to give options, but that's not truly downsizing as the Mini is primarily meant as a b-cam on high end productions, so it's really more of them giving an option for when you need a smaller camera, as opposed to their A-cam getting smaller.

I think for now cameras are getting larger to be able to handle the processing and heat of 4k raw, 8K raw, 1000fps, etc., but as those technological hurdles are overcome cameras that are probably larger than ideal, like the Alex65, will get smaller again, until they're back to the "perfect size," whatever that is. It does make an interesting question; if the size of the electronics are irrelevant (say all the electronics can fit in the size of a pea), then what would the ideal camera size be for various productions/situations?

 

[klk]

then what would the ideal camera size be for various productions/situations?

That all depends on the style of production. For example, I was cam op on a feature and they wanted to go shoulder mount hand held for most of it. Not easy rig, not steadicam, just put the camera on the shoulder. We were using Alexa XTs, primes and Optimo zooms. The dp was repeatedly asking me to handhold a 135mm prime. The weight of the Alexa, and the way it was built out (two HCX batteries on back, Teradek, single channel WFF, 1 or 2 TV Logic monitors) made it a well balanced rig, and fairly easy to hand hold.

Many of us actually prefer a heavier camera for handholding- it takes out a lot of higher frequency shakes and vibrations you get with small cameras. Of course I'm able to simply hand off the camera to the 1st ac after the take. It's not light, but my job is to be able to do that day in and out if required.

For small shoots, down to one man band, I'd like a camera with minimal external gak hanging off it. Minimal connections and wires to deal with- and here a traditional ENG/ EFP camera form factor comes to mind. Things like good internal ND's help a lot on small shoots. (um, Red, Black Magic, SOny F55(limited NDs)?)

If you started with DSLR's I'm guessing the canon C series makes a lot of sense. They never made sense to me until I was hired to shoot BTS on some of the Canon short films (they wanted union ops for that- go figure). Just the body, a zoom lens, a lock-it box, audio hop from the mixer and sometimes a monopod. Holding the C300 in front of me the ergonomics of that design suddenly made sense- this was what it was designed for. Previously I always rigged a C300/C500 with rods, Anton Bauer battery and the usual cinema gak- a very unwieldy build.

So it all depends on the size and style of production. Try to use the right tools when possible. More often than not budget and now post production workflows (costs) predetermine what producers are willing to shoot with. For example, I just wrapped as dp on a small feature. I was hired a couple of weeks before the shoot and the producer said we can go Alexa 4:3 and Hawk Vintage 74 anamorphics. The Hawks weren't available so I asked for Cooke anamorphics. Financial push came to shove so I asked for Varicams and S4s. That was too expensive so we settled on Sony F55s and Cooke S4s. It was kinda a bait and switch, but it is what it is, and all of the current cameras are really pretty good these days.

The Varicam LT looks like a sensible package for many productions, as does the Amira. The C300 Mk2 also looks like a sensible camera when we don't need all the cinema gak and packs much tighter.

So as always- it depends.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I think the paradigm is more about a similar class of cameras becoming more affordable so they are within reach of the average user. There are still the same size cameras that were available 5+ years ago, from DSLR's to 1/3" cameras, but the full-featured cine cameras that were out of grasp for budget filmmaking 5 years ago have now creeped down to become more accessible.

Both the DXL and the Alexa 65 are large format cameras, stands to reason they are larger packages.

I don't really want to belabor the point but...taking comparable generations of cameras in a historical timeline, until there is a specific shift in technologies (film to large sensor digital, large sensor to larger sensor etc), cameras are tending to get smaller and less expensive.

Your last question is a good one so let's move on to that! What is an optimally sized camera. I think that there are clear divisions in terms of what type of project is involved. A documentary would obviously benefit from the smallest possible camera to be the least intrusive, whereas that is not as much of a concern on a scripted set. Handheld stability is a very specific set of needs...I personally believe the best form factor was the Aaton XTR and the 90's era Betacams, both of which perched balanced on the shoulder with low center of gravity, around 20lbs or so. A heavier body will give more stability via inertia, but over long takes will be more tiring which in turn promotes instability from the operator's end. And a body that is too small and light will deliver jittery results. However--internal and post stabilization is on its way to solving all of this. I fully expect that we will have real-time stabilization that rivals that of the gimbal systems built in to cameras within a few years, a combination of mechanical stabilization of the chip and internal processing. So the form factor may become irrelevant soon enough.

Outside of handheld, the question of how to access the controls is indeed a good one. I believe there is a lot more that can be done to improve the interface. Processes that require multiple steps such as going to high speed that currently require changing codecs, mode, dial in frame rate and reboot should be collated into user-defined macros. There should be full customizable user menus distinct from the standard ones that only contain the regularly used items in whatever configuration the user prefers. Active displays on the camera body that indicate the current configuration of user buttons so you don't have to memorize their function.

You had mentioned earlier that lenses are somewhat exempt from the shrinking camera concept but I think the market is driving a push towards cheaper, smaller lenses, and as a result we are going to see more in-camera correction for optical flaws that will allow for this to happen.

On my various TV series, if we had a character shooting videoon their phone we would generally recreate it on our primary cameras. In the past year I've taken to just shooting it on iPhones (often with the actors themselves holding it) as the image is perfectly acceptable and looks more authentic. Sometimes it is a little scary just how close it can look to the Alexa! I can only imagine where this will be in a few more generations of tech.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

You had mentioned earlier that lenses are somewhat exempt from the shrinking camera concept but I think the market is driving a push towards cheaper, smaller lenses, and as a result we are going to see more in-camera correction for optical flaws that will allow for this to happen.

Well sure, maybe for optical flaws like chromatic aberration and distortion, but a camera won't be able to increase a lens' resolving power or make it have a faster f-stop.

As ISO performance gets better eventually people won't need to shoot with a faster f-stop for the sake of having enough light, but they'll still want the aesthetic of being able to choose how much depth of field they want, and if they want say a shallow depth of field from a fast cinema zoom lens, from what I understand of lens design that lens will never be small.

However--internal and post stabilization is on its way to solving all of this. I fully expect that we will have real-time stabilization that rivals that of the gimbal systems built in to cameras within a few years, a combination of mechanical stabilization of the chip and internal processing. So the form factor may become irrelevant soon enough.

Just as gimbals don't perfectly mimic the organic look of Steadicam, and lens image stabilization (or IBIS on cams like the A7s II) doesn't perfectly mimic using a large camera on the shoulder, I have doubts that in-camera stabilization will ever make other forms of stabilization gear irrelevant. Which isn't really what you were saying. It will be another tool to have, which I'm sure lower end productions will love, but I'm not so sure high end productions will readily adopt it regularly.

I think on high end productions they tend to lean toward the old ways (because they're often better), hence why gimbals and IS is not seen in Hollywood as much as Steadicam and large shoulder-mounted cameras. I'd guess it'd remain the same even as in-camera stabilization improves.

I know whenever I resort to post-stabilization when editing my own footage, I blame needing to use it on me not getting the shot stable enough while shooting it; it always would have looked better to not have had to use post stabilization.

You have technology like the SteadXP which will improve over time, but that technology still bases on cropping and warping the image, so the very basis of that stabilization depends on image degradation, just like most post stabilization does.

 

[DLD]

When the electric guitars premiered - were invented - back in the early 1930's, many a bandleader refused to even feature them (or even hire a guitar player). It first took Fender amps and guitars (Tele and Strat) of the late 40's/early 50's, for the overall sound mix to move from purely acoustic to mostly amplified (drums were the last to go). The real "rock" era did not begin in earnest until the fuzz/distortion/sustain pedals came in vogue in 1965, following the release of "Satisfaction" and "Heartful of Soul". And, even taking into account WWII, that was a thirty year transition period. The digital era in pro use basically goes back to the beginning of this century. Within another decade, people might finally learn how to maximize their time and efforts with all this new tech.

My opinion is that motion control/robotic arms/programmable sliders and jibs will soon dominate the high end TV production, thereafter trickling down to the lower budgets. Sensors will keep on delivering more resolution and mo' bettah' ISO, which will enable Alexa quality video from a GoPro size camera. Hovering (tethered when needed) drones (with ducted turbine fans, rather than props, that will have a silencer type of a device attached) will make the Steadicam/gimbals obsolete, et cetera, et cetera.

And there's a lot of other stuff that someone will invent and we'll be saying, "Why didn't I think of that?"

PS. Voice commands will not be given with a "Lights, Camera, Action!" aplomb. A throat mic and some acoustic dampening will be sufficient for most live uses. With a robotic arm, a joystick or two will probably be needed.

 

[klk]

Steering back to hardware that is available right now-

Has anyone done a direct comparison- varicam LT and C300Mk2? Or at least worked with both cameras on paying gigs? I priced an LT kit, and all in it's about $24K. A C300Mk2 is now about $15K all in, with the new discount.

I'm going to guess selling a 4K C300 mk2 image to clients will not be difficult- as old as the Varicam name is, it's the new kit on the block. Anyone who has used both cameras want to chime in- especially on the client acceptance issues?

 

[Fabricio Morato]

This is comparing the Varicam 35 against the c300 mk2... but should have similar results with the LT. https://vimeo.com/161734633

 

[Fabricio Morato]

And about client acceptance it really depends on the market and the kind of work you do. Here where I'm from the FS7 is going out like crazy. Clients love it. The C300Mk2 doesn't go out as much (from what I see in productions, since I don't own one). But I've heard people saying that in their market the C300 mk2 goes out really well. So best bet is to research your local market.
If you rent the gear with you attached as a DP, I don't believe it would change that much, since people would be (hopefully) hiring you based on your skills/portfolio rather than the gear used.