Manufacturers and Customer Support in Decline

[Peter C.]

I had a good experience with Panasonic customer service today so maybe all hope is not lost.

Although the quality has advanced there are many pitfalls you have to watch out for these cameras. I have 4hr seminar held in very low light that would benefit from a FF camera but I couldn't take a chance the camera would overheat and shutdown, no matter the quality it would be a disaster. Lot of these cameras have bad user interface, unusual quirks, and lack reliability and durability. Things are turned on their head many of the things a professional would demand are not important to these manufactures.

 

[morgan_moore]

Ive thought of doing a YT video about gear design.
Simply id be getting into a car and putting the camera on my lap and we'd go for a drive. Either it would work or the micro hdmi and xlr christmas tree would get snapped off. Id then get out of the car and try and compose a shot in bright sun - id need my eye 'in' something.
Such is entirely possible with a 2/3 cam. Almost possible with my C200*, probably ruled by the FX6-28-135 and impossible with most modern mirrorless and 'pocket' designs. To me (for weak little me) too heavy and big the 2/3 cam is the gold standard of usability and robust. The 4.3mm zoom the usable range to shoot coverage for a sequence.

I dont 'like' white and non extending canon lenses.. but they work exactly as expected for years (16-35 24-70 70-200) you cant complain - im sure g masters and current nikkors are fine too.

*in fact you can argue which is more of a ball ache - the mass of the 2/3 cam or the ergonomic weakness of the c200.

 

[Run&Gun]

And somehow it manages it keep getting cheaper.

I agree with Sam that there are a lot of design flaws to different pieces of gear that could probably have been improved without making the unit more expensive.

Nevertheless, you can do an awful lot for an awful little these days. And, considering the fact that Sam lists Canon photo lenses in his list of likes which some people (not me) absolutely avoid shooting video with, i feel like a lot of his quibbles come down to which workarounds he's not personally willing to work around.

Oh, I totally agree with Sam on many, many of his gear shortcoming gripes. I’ve also seen pictures of Sam, He could throw my 2/3” ENG cams and Amira around like they were handycams. Hell, he could probably throw me on his shoulder with my camera on my shoulder and run around. Lol.

 

[Run&Gun]

Ive thought of doing a YT video about gear design.
Simply id be getting into a car and putting the camera on my lap and we'd go for a drive. Either it would work or the micro hdmi and xlr christmas tree would get snapped off. Id then get out of the car and try and compose a shot in bright sun - id need my eye 'in' something.
Such is entirely possible with a 2/3 cam. Almost possible with my C200*, probably ruled by the FX6-28-135 and impossible with most modern mirrorless and 'pocket' designs. To me (for weak little me) too heavy and big the 2/3 cam is the gold standard of usability and robust. The 4.3mm zoom the usable range to shoot coverage for a sequence.

I dont 'like' white and non extending canon lenses.. but they work exactly as expected for years (16-35 24-70 70-200) you cant complain - im sure g masters and current nikkors are fine too.

*in fact you can argue which is more of a ball ache - the mass of the 2/3 cam or the ergonomic weakness of the c200.

S***** Canon C series ergonomics are more of a pain in the stones than the weight of a 2/3” ENG cam and lens. Especially as that ENG cam and lens will be perfectly balanced on your shoulder with everything right where is needs to be. But then again, I also run around shooting handheld with an Amira and 25-250 on my shoulder all day long, too. I guess I’m very particular in how I like to operate/shoot and kind of a glutton for punishment at the same time. Or to look at it another way, I’m more willing to accept larger size and heavier weight to have better operability than to give that up for smaller size and less weight, because shooting with an ergonomically **** camera can be more tiring and definitely more frustrating and distracting than using a big/heavy one.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Thank you for that write-up/info! (And way back I sold you some Atomos accessories one time, lol.)

Oh yeah! The accessory case with some bits 'n pieces. Probably all still in use one way or another, although I finally got tired of jamming things into those unforgiving inserts in the Atomos cases and had a proper large case foamed out for multiple recorders and accessories.

 

[CharlesPapert]

In the US, smallHD is pretty much THE on-cam monitor of choice everywhere you look.

I can confirm that the go-to onboard camera for most film sets is a 703 high bright, and most of the AC's I know use the 1303 for focus pulling. When putting in my orders for jobs to rental houses those are the typical placeholders I use, plus "or equivalent" and rarely do they get changed out (sometimes to TV Logic onboards).

 

[Thomas Smet]

I hope they survive - but, to me, external recorders were a very 2015-2019-ish thing...but maybe I'm wrong and the hardware is alive and well.

Recorders do seem much less useful now but I'm not entirely sure they were ever a hot item.

What I see as being more useful today now more than before is an external monitor. While external recording may not be a must there are many that realize shooting 4k, 6k or 8k on a tiny 3" screen just isn't the best solution. While the Atomos of course cost more because of their ability to record they are also some pretty solid external monitors with lots of pro features. I sometimes use my Ninja V as just a monitor and it's better than many of the cheap monitors out there. Better in terms of actually handling 1000 nit HDR, having a good interface, lots of features and better accurate scopes and built in log corrections for many log formats. I also feel they are pretty robust devices and more willing to get firmware updates vs some of the cheap options off of Amazon.

There are those that easily pay Atomos prices for just SmallHD and other higher end displays that are only monitors. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to buy a Ninja V for just the monitor with the added benefit that it could record externally someday if you need it. They also have the Shinobi which I would take over any off brand monitor any day. It's not worth it to save a few bucks on the cheap brands like FeelWorld and the 500 other clones on Amazon/E-Bay.

There are other use cases to have a Ninja.

1. Backup recording for cameras that do not record to two different media at the same time. One could just use the Atomos to record a backup and toss it away if the internal video is fine after a shoot. Erase the drive and use it again.
2. Ability to record longer than 30 minutes and to get past any potential to overheat on FF cameras. This limitation is starting to go away but over heating will still be an issue for awhile yet. Especially if it gets hot out. I live in AZ and in the summer it's hard to keep any camera alive. Heck its hard for any human to stay alive outside in the summer for longer than five minutes.
3. False color which most DSLR like cameras do not have built in. Atomos also has the ability to update the scope features more often than a DSLR like camera would have. Itas pretty rare for a camera to suddenly add a whole new type of scope.
4. Ability to apply a custom lut to the recorded video so it's all done and ready to edit. Not all cameras can do this and only some cameras even have the ability to load a lut for preview.

External recording isn't always just about image quality. I think fake reviews have not done them a lot of justice recently either. The kind of lazy YouTube videos where they look at the video side by side and can't see a difference. Internal codecs are now at the point where visually on the surface they do look great but you don't toss out that much data and not lose something. It's the shadow and noise performance that suffers the most and makes it harder to push shadows to recover details. If one isn't pushing values then no they never needed external recording. That doesn't mean there isn't an advantage however.

Than we have raw. Something that should have made these recorders a lot more interesting again. I find it odd there isn't more excitement around that. It's like everyone wants to nitpick an extra 1/16th of a stop of dynamic range but completely ignores what happens with the images in camera. A lot of cameras apply some level of in camera noise reduction and image tweaking we can never turn off. It gives us a cleaner image with more perceived dynamic range but it also leaves behind something a bit more electronic looking in the process. Raw is more about bypassing all of that and having a true unaltered image from the camera.Then we can choose how to modify it. Same reason why photographers shoot raw photos vs baked in jpegs. They are in control of the look.

Unfortunately the raw landscape is a huge mess right now. Now that I have Canon raw on a R5 as of yesterday it looks amazing but works like crap. ProRes raw does not work in Resolve and Braw does not work in FCP. Red screws everyone and has contributed to the hot mess we are in. BMD has changed the raw game forever as well. I don't know many Pocket shooters that shoot anything besides raw. They are 100% raw and they love it. But then it all makes perfect sense and they don't need an external recorder. So the market most likely to use raw has absolutely no need for a Ninja. Not only because their cameras already record raw but because ProRes Raw would be useless to them since it doesn't work in Resolve. Atomos basically has everyone that has not jumped on the BMD raw bandwagon left as a market. Many of those in that market just have no desire or need for raw so that puts external raw from DSLRs in a very odd position.

Raw from a DSLR means it's geared towards one who requires the kind of quality more geared towards cinematic work. Yet the body, menu system and forced photo features are still a limitation of that camera. It's just not a cinema camera. Film makers didn't move away from DSLRs because of a lack of raw. They moved away because of the cameras themselves. They don't want hybrid. They want a true dedicated cinema camera. At one point DSLRs were just the means to get closer to that.

 

[cpreston]

They had an executive Harlem shuffle too. Jeromy Young was fired for not being PC enough and then they went woke and now you're seeing the result.

You mean Atomos is no longer this company: https://youtu.be/CRQOBc0YUyk?t=364

 

[ahalpert]

You mean Atomos is no longer this company: https://youtu.be/CRQOBc0YUyk?t=364

hahaha

can someone tell DLD that all his favorite companies also have diversity and harassment policies

 

[NorBro]

Recorders do seem much less useful now but I'm not entirely sure they were ever a hot item.

What I see as being more useful today now more than before is an external monitor. While external recording may not be a must there are many that realize shooting 4k, 6k or 8k on a tiny 3" screen just isn't the best solution. While the Atomos of course cost more because of their ability to record they are also some pretty solid external monitors with lots of pro features. I sometimes use my Ninja V as just a monitor and it's better than many of the cheap monitors out there. Better in terms of actually handling 1000 nit HDR, having a good interface, lots of features and better accurate scopes and built in log corrections for many log formats. I also feel they are pretty robust devices and more willing to get firmware updates vs some of the cheap options off of Amazon.

There are those that easily pay Atomos prices for just SmallHD and other higher end displays that are only monitors. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to buy a Ninja V for just the monitor with the added benefit that it could record externally someday if you need it. They also have the Shinobi which I would take over any off brand monitor any day. It's not worth it to save a few bucks on the cheap brands like FeelWorld and the 500 other clones on Amazon/E-Bay.

There are other use cases to have a Ninja.

1. Backup recording for cameras that do not record to two different media at the same time. One could just use the Atomos to record a backup and toss it away if the internal video is fine after a shoot. Erase the drive and use it again.
2. Ability to record longer than 30 minutes and to get past any potential to overheat on FF cameras. This limitation is starting to go away but over heating will still be an issue for awhile yet. Especially if it gets hot out. I live in AZ and in the summer it's hard to keep any camera alive. Heck its hard for any human to stay alive outside in the summer for longer than five minutes.
3. False color which most DSLR like cameras do not have built in. Atomos also has the ability to update the scope features more often than a DSLR like camera would have. Itas pretty rare for a camera to suddenly add a whole new type of scope.
4. Ability to apply a custom lut to the recorded video so it's all done and ready to edit. Not all cameras can do this and only some cameras even have the ability to load a lut for preview.

External recording isn't always just about image quality. I think fake reviews have not done them a lot of justice recently either. The kind of lazy YouTube videos where they look at the video side by side and can't see a difference. Internal codecs are now at the point where visually on the surface they do look great but you don't toss out that much data and not lose something. It's the shadow and noise performance that suffers the most and makes it harder to push shadows to recover details. If one isn't pushing values then no they never needed external recording. That doesn't mean there isn't an advantage however.

Than we have raw. Something that should have made these recorders a lot more interesting again. I find it odd there isn't more excitement around that. It's like everyone wants to nitpick an extra 1/16th of a stop of dynamic range but completely ignores what happens with the images in camera. A lot of cameras apply some level of in camera noise reduction and image tweaking we can never turn off. It gives us a cleaner image with more perceived dynamic range but it also leaves behind something a bit more electronic looking in the process. Raw is more about bypassing all of that and having a true unaltered image from the camera.Then we can choose how to modify it. Same reason why photographers shoot raw photos vs baked in jpegs. They are in control of the look.

Unfortunately the raw landscape is a huge mess right now. Now that I have Canon raw on a R5 as of yesterday it looks amazing but works like crap. ProRes raw does not work in Resolve and Braw does not work in FCP. Red screws everyone and has contributed to the hot mess we are in. BMD has changed the raw game forever as well. I don't know many Pocket shooters that shoot anything besides raw. They are 100% raw and they love it. But then it all makes perfect sense and they don't need an external recorder. So the market most likely to use raw has absolutely no need for a Ninja. Not only because their cameras already record raw but because ProRes Raw would be useless to them since it doesn't work in Resolve. Atomos basically has everyone that has not jumped on the BMD raw bandwagon left as a market. Many of those in that market just have no desire or need for raw so that puts external raw from DSLRs in a very odd position.

Raw from a DSLR means it's geared towards one who requires the kind of quality more geared towards cinematic work. Yet the body, menu system and forced photo features are still a limitation of that camera. It's just not a cinema camera. Film makers didn't move away from DSLRs because of a lack of raw. They moved away because of the cameras themselves. They don't want hybrid. They want a true dedicated cinema camera. At one point DSLRs were just the means to get closer to that.

'RAW' and 'filmmakers'...

(1) RAW mostly became a marketing term once companies realized it's very marketable (around 2016 or so). The true IQ of the codecs and formats vary greatly and anyone can call whatever they make in-house RAW. If someone's new proprietary creation is high-quality, it's "RAW". The R5's RAW is very nice but it's completely useless in FCP with making any of those aforementioned adjustments. All it provides is more robust flexibility while you go about mucking around with different color controls, wheels, curves, and/or plugins to mend and bend the data. That's great but it's nothing like REDCODE which has a tidy area in FCP to quickly adjust all of those wonderful parameters that Photoshop offers to stills (not all but most of the big ones like exposure, saturation, contrast, tint, white balance, etc).

(2) Filmmakers....there are content creators who are "filmmakers" and then there are real Sundance-like filmmakers. The latter definitely uses true cinema cameras, but the collective community using a camera, any camera, to capture motion pictures is using mirrorless'. Most people didn't move away from DSLRs because they were hybrids; they moved away from them because the cameras didn't have simple features like 10-bit or zebras, or the IQ was garbage, and if you wanted better you had to pay more for the true cinema cameras. In the past years (as I'm sure you know), mirrorless' are loaded even more than cinema cameras...there have been over 100 made in the last 10 years vs. like 20 cinema bodies. In general, waaayyy more people are using hybrids (although if you case study the 1% big money productions, no one's using hybrids as A-cams - so it depends on who you're exactly speaking about).

___

As for recorders, they had their time. I mean, what's hot? They were big on the scene and discussed frequently. And if a company (several companies at one point) make millions of dollars on only recorders then I think that's a hot item.

 

[Thomas Smet]

'RAW' and 'filmmakers'...

(1) RAW mostly became a marketing term once companies realized it's very marketable (around 2016 or so). The true IQ of the codecs and formats vary greatly and anyone can call whatever they make in-house RAW. If someone's new proprietary creation is high-quality, it's "RAW". The R5's RAW is very nice but it's completely useless in FCP with making any of those aforementioned adjustments. All it provides is more robust flexibility while you go about mucking around with different color controls, wheels, curves, and/or plugins to mend and bend the data. That's great but it's nothing like REDCODE which has a tidy area in FCP to quickly adjust all of those wonderful parameters that Photoshop offers to stills (not all but most of the big ones like exposure, saturation, contrast, tint, white balance, etc).

(2) Filmmakers....there are content creators who are "filmmakers" and then there are real Sundance-like filmmakers. The latter definitely uses true cinema cameras, but the collective community using a camera, any camera, to capture motion pictures is using mirrorless'. Most people didn't move away from DSLRs because they were hybrids; they moved away from them because the cameras didn't have simple features like 10-bit or zebras, or the IQ was garbage, and if you wanted better you had to pay more for the true cinema cameras. In the past years (as I'm sure you know), mirrorless' are loaded even more than cinema cameras...there have been over 100 made in the last 10 years vs. like 20 cinema bodies. In general, waaayyy more people are using hybrids (although if you case study the 1% big money productions, no one's using hybrids as A-cams - so it depends on who you're exactly speaking about).

___

As for recorders, they had their time. I mean, what's hot? They were big on the scene and discussed frequently. And if a company (several companies at one point) make millions of dollars on only recorders then I think that's a hot item.

I would argue how many editing with FCP really need raw and all the controls of raw? While it's awesome to be able to use raw in FCP I just don't think a lot of people are. Those working with raw are more likely to use Resolve or an application better suited to grading like Assimilate Scratch which I used to use.

 

[NorBro]

Yeah, that's true, in general, because also FCP is likely the least used NLE as well (but I mentioned it because you did, and it's also worth noting that Apple/RED worked together on having that functionality whereas there's absolutely no interest at all in BRAW, especially once ProRes RAW got going).

I said it many times before, but Apple is patiently waiting until 2028 (patents) and then not only are we going to see many cameras have ProRes RAW (I think they will offer a lower cost for the licensing), but of course all iPhones and iPads will have it as well, maybe even the computers, too.

[A computer with a high-quality built-in camera with ProRes RAW that sends it directly to iMovie or FCP is a no-brainer (but the handheld devices will likely get it first because it's a world on-the-go).

 

[ahalpert]

I would argue how many editing with FCP really need raw and all the controls of raw? While it's awesome to be able to use raw in FCP I just don't think a lot of people are. Those working with raw are more likely to use Resolve or an application better suited to grading like Assimilate Scratch which I used to use.

I think the problem with prores raw is file sizes. It's very convenient to have small file sizes when you're passing footage around. My main employer still uses fs7's in-house, and its 240Mbps/24fps codec is bad enough. They've started hiring a DP with c500mk2's and the codec on that is like 810Mbps, it's awful.

But besides that, I actually think that "low-end" users probably have more to gain from using RAW than high-end users do. I received some footage recently that was some of the worst I've ever seen. It was artwork-in-home b-roll, I think it was shot on a phone with no rig. Auto WB, auto ISO. Some of the problems with the footage would have been easily whipped if it had been shot RAW.

 

[DLD]

You mean Atomos is no longer this company: https://youtu.be/CRQOBc0YUyk?t=364

Ah, memories of Joe Marine. And whoever that guy in a cap is.

 

[CharlesPapert]

But besides that, I actually think that "low-end" users probably have more to gain from using RAW than high-end users do.

Yep. My take is that RAW is worth it for the opposing ends of the biz. As you said, the low end needs it to salvage poor exposures and lighting. And high end productions like studio features can manage the workflow. But there is a massive amount of production inbetween that doesn't want to accommodate the workflow. More storage, more transcoding, more stuff for post to do...they ain't interested.

 

[NorBro]

It's not as bad as it used to be and you pretty much don't have to transcode anything anymore (not sure what Codex is up to these days).

The file sizes might still be a problem for some, but will continue to be less of a thought for the newer generation, at least with 4K.

Catch a few good SSD deals and you can have 16-20 TB for a little over a $1,000.

With the continued advancement of computers, storage, internet speeds and knowledge & convenient proxy workflows, it's less of a concern these days, especially for real post-production facilities. (10-15 years ago, you'd see/hear people stressing about a few hundred GBs of footage, ha.)

 

[NorBro]

Also want to add that what's more of a problem is the media cost, at least for solo ops.

The handling of the data on smaller-sized cards is a real PITA.

Start shooting 8K/60p with those higher data rates and it's practically not doable besides for b-roll.

 

[ahalpert]

Also want to add that what's more of a problem is the media cost, at least for solo ops.

The handling of the data on smaller-sized cards is a real PITA.

Start shooting 8K/60p with those higher data rates and it's practically not doable besides for b-roll.

The bottleneck I run into at work is in transmitting the data to me. They mostly send me footage through the cloud, using an enterprise archive system called CTERA which is slow to upload and download, or when they're in a hurry they use a pay-per-GB system called MASV, which is very fast. My download speed is about 850Mbps and MASV can use all of that.

But, for example, they did a recent shoot with a tight turnaround. It was 3 C500mk2's shooting 4K slow mo with the 810Mbps codec. About 16 hours of footage, 3TB. In truth, the producer didn't plan well for data management. They should have packaged up half their footage midway through the day and either sent it to me via MASV or on an overnight FedEx, and sent the rest later. They ended up sending it all to me on an overnight drive the following morning. So, I received it two mornings after the shoot, on a spinning drive which I then had to transfer to an SSD. Lots of problems all around.

As long as you have hardware accelerated computers, I'm happy to shoot long-gop h265 as long as it's 10-bit 4:2:2. But the senior editor at this outfit wants everything in all-intra h264. The h265 codec on a7siii/fx3 is only 100Mbps. Considering all the footage I receive and transmit through the cloud, that's the direction I'd prefer things to trend in, especially since a lot of the people I interface with have much slower internet than I do.

 

[Run&Gun]

I think the problem with prores raw is file sizes. It's very convenient to have small file sizes when you're passing footage around. My main employer still uses fs7's in-house, and its 240Mbps/24fps codec is bad enough. They've started hiring a DP with c500mk2's and the codec on that is like 810Mbps, it's awful.

But besides that, I actually think that "low-end" users probably have more to gain from using RAW than high-end users do. I received some footage recently that was some of the worst I've ever seen. It was artwork-in-home b-roll, I think it was shot on a phone with no rig. Auto WB, auto ISO. Some of the problems with the footage would have been easily whipped if it had been shot RAW.

Yep! Because so many don't know how to do the fundamentals, the basics, exposure and white balance or at least choosing the proper/best preset. And when you call them out on it, their argument is that it doesn't matter, because they can do it in post(or think that they can).

 

[NorBro]

The bottleneck I run into at work is in transmitting the data to me. They mostly send me footage through the cloud, using an enterprise archive system called CTERA which is slow to upload and download, or when they're in a hurry they use a pay-per-GB system called MASV, which is very fast. My download speed is about 850Mbps and MASV can use all of that.

But, for example, they did a recent shoot with a tight turnaround. It was 3 C500mk2's shooting 4K slow mo with the 810Mbps codec. About 16 hours of footage, 3TB. In truth, the producer didn't plan well for data management. They should have packaged up half their footage midway through the day and either sent it to me via MASV or on an overnight FedEx, and sent the rest later. They ended up sending it all to me on an overnight drive the following morning. So, I received it two mornings after the shoot, on a spinning drive which I then had to transfer to an SSD. Lots of problems all around.

As long as you have hardware accelerated computers, I'm happy to shoot long-gop h265 as long as it's 10-bit 4:2:2. But the senior editor at this outfit wants everything in all-intra h264. The h265 codec on a7siii/fx3 is only 100Mbps. Considering all the footage I receive and transmit through the cloud, that's the direction I'd prefer things to trend in, especially since a lot of the people I interface with have much slower internet than I do.

This mostly sounds like a communication issue (or management issue like you said)...but I think uploading/downloading large amounts of data over the air is still a hassle right now for most.

If you have a person on a production handling the footage (someone who's really good at his or her job), you can go home with a SSD filled with folders (Card 1, Card 2, Card 3...or have that drive shipped).

If people start creating bottlenecks with sharing multiple TBs through clouds or sending it all on spinning drives - with tight turnaround times - it's never fun.