Need Advice, young professional and AVCHD

P

Plazer

Member
Hello


I have noticed that there are several people in this online community who work in the television and corporate video world and I was looking for some advice. First, some background on me.


I am the graduate of a three year Television and New Media Production Program. I graduated with honours, took place in many internships and volunteer shoots and one many awards including one for a short film which had a local theatre release. After school.


I began working for a “mom and pop” videography company which had some practices and other issues which weren’t for me, I did like the idea of having a similar business but this particular one was not for me.


I love film, but went to TV school feeling I would learn more technical skills and thought of it as though it was a trade school. It was wonderful, but getting a job with a television network seems hard even for a graduate, especially when most require several years of work experiance minimum.


Interning is also a fine way to get your fit in the door but I have spent months of my life and thousands of dollars living in a big city (Toronto) working pro-bono for 8-9 days and nothing has come of it....


So I thought about getting my own gear and hitting up a big city with a business on the side. I have a DSLR, some nice lenses, a few Lav mics, a shotgun mic, Zoom H4N, Manfrotto 503HDV tripod on a nice set of sticks and a Mac Pro....and some simple constant lights etc etc etc..... but alas the HDSLR world, though it provides great images lacks BIG in one thing.... nobody trusts it.


When people see my DSLR rig they wont take it seriously even after you have shown them the video. Also editing DSLR footage and syncing sound is a hassle.... I missed using the trusty EX-1, EX3 and even Panasonics HVX200 and HPX170....


So I am looking into buying an ENG style camera, something with a zoom, waveform and vector scope, XLR ins etc. But alas I am a young man, who has already spent a lot of money on school and gear and have gotten NO GIGS on my own.


So I was looking at the HMC150, yes it records in AVCHD but honestly the 21mp AVCHD looks damn close to the EX footage and (dare I say it) sometimes better (sometimes) then what the HPX170 I used produced...... but I am worried if this will be useable for networks......


Now I know someone is going to mention the BBC and Discovery, but thats not what I mean. If I ever worked for a bigger company that actually would hire me I would rent a kit that works best with their system and regulations. But, if I shoot a commercial with this can it air on tv if my client wants to? If I shoot a music video, could it play on MTV/Much? A pilot?


Some people will say, “if its compelling then yes” but that's not true. If I should a well compossed commercial with proper audio levels and proper colorcorrection etc, but shot it on a pocket cam they wouldn't allow it.....


And yes, some people shoot episodes of shows and so forth on DSLR's but these are ESTABLISHED DP's and Directors who have some freedom to play. I'm sure Steven Spilburg could shoot a movie on Sony Bloggies.... but they aint going to take it from me.


I want something that will work for corporate, DVD, event etc... but also could be used on TV if my cilents want it, or sold if I get into journalism. Most of all I want to work less in retail and more doing what I love, making videos! However the money I would save getting an HMC over an EX1 (or something similar) could get me a better light kit and some music libarys.... and what I say in SxS cards or P2 could go towards, After Effects or more microphones etc etc




Any advice would be dandy.... all in all I just need something so that I can get those “years of experience” build a reel that’s my own and not part of a school or volunteer catalogue and one day be shooting full time like my heros!


Cheers!
 
If what you can afford is the HMC150, I say go for it. It's a really good deal right now at B and H photo - $2669. It should be good for a lot of work and the DLSR could just supplement your kit. A lot of the stuff on MTV looks like garbage, so I'm sure anything shot really well has a chance. Network yourself and I'm sure you'll find quite a few jobs.(videos/short films/commercials) Good luck to you.
 
Would the AVCHD codec be accepted though? Corperate videos and things like that which go to individual users, well that stuff does not matter so long as the client thinks it looks good. But if a video is shot completely on AVCHD can their videos air on tv? Say, just for arguements sake, I shot a video for McDonalds using ONLY AVCHD, would national television air it? And before people mention House, or SNL etc etc I mean the average schmoe not trying to prove a point.... would this be acceptable? My worrie is that I will have cilents come back and complain because the content does not meet broadcast standards.


Otherwise I would just spring for a HPX170 BUT I want 1920x1080 as when I had shot on those in the past people like hearing that 1920..... but the DVCPRO codec is standard.

Also the Canon XF100 does 4:2:2 and 50 meg BUT I like the lay out of the HMC150 and the fact that I can snap zoom as well as the HMC is a little bigger (people seem to like big) and also I can use the 64 gigs of cards I have already.....

Anyone here shoot HMC150 on television shows? Aired commercials etc?
 
You can always convert the files to the codec the client wants in the cases where you need to. I know some channels have standards on what the footage is originated on, but P2 wouldn't even solve that one...they ask for certain sensor size and so on and so forth. I think you might be putting the cart before the horse though. Go get some gigs and make enough in both cash and reputation to get even better equipment/jobs. There's a lot of people on this site making money on lesser cameras than the HMC150. I'd also be willing to bet there's a lot of nationally aired spots shot on lesser/older cameras as well.
 
You are not shooting a national spot the HMC150. Not that it isn't theoretically feasible, but if you were shooting a spot for McDonalds, the budget would be such that you would be renting a bigger camera. A local spot is one thing, but once a company is springing for a national spot, you're talking millions of dollars to produce it... at which point you ought to be springing for at least an AF100, and probably an F3.

For local stuff, in theory you probably can get away with it. In theory. Realistically, it's probably not going to happen for broadcast television. The issue, especially in markets the size of Toronto, is that the rates to air an ad are such that a client is either going to have a big budget, or they're going to have one of the TV stations take care it as part of a package deal. But, let's say you do manage to score a client who wants to produce a spot for air on broadcast TV. Where I work (local network affiliate, and Seattle is a big market) I believe the policy is we're more concerned about audio levels and delivery format than what you actually shoot on. Remember, the client is paying for the air time... that's the opposite of trying to get a documentary bought by Discovery or the BBC from the client. However, Canada is different country, and Toronto a different market. The only way to know for sure is to ask some of the local broadcasters what their standards and requirements are. I should also point out the the news department of the local FOX station here shoots on EX-3's, which is 4:2:0 like AVCHD. No one has any issues.

Now smaller markets are a different thing. I've seen stuff in Spokane that was just painful to watch, and the Spokane area is only half the size of Seattle (which is half the size of Toronto). Heck, even stuff I've seen in Seattle and Vancouver is downright mediocre. Also, what about cable? Most people (at least in the US) get their TV via cable, and watch a lot of cable stations that aren't broadcast over the air. And some of the cable spots I've seen here is just downright bad, so you have a shot. Not to say what you're capable of is bad, but the bar is really low and if you have talent you have a shot. Ask you're local cable operator(s) what their technical requirements are.

Another thing to think about is television viewership is going down, and the amount of options on TV is growing. But a lot of folks are turning to the web... which has no standards. You're also not hemmed in by time constraints of the :15, :30, and 1:00 spot. It may not be as glorious as broadcast TV, but as someone who is just starting out, looking towards web commercials might be a better way to generate income AND build a portfolio. A well done spot is a well done spot, regardless of whether it's was for the web. And frankly TV is dying. I have so many former coworkers due to layoffs it isn't funny. So don't be so hung up on just broadcast TV that you miss other lucrative opportunities.
 
Here's the funny thing though.... a TON of NATIONAL spots have been shot on Canon DLSRs. That's what I don't get....the codec on those is by all accounts not nearly as good as the AVCHD of the HMC150. I agree with Mike though that if you were shooting for a BIG client your budget would be such that you could rent another camera. Still ...I think you should get the HMC or what ever you can afford and start building from there.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Here's the funny thing though.... a TON of NATIONAL spots have been shot on Canon DLSRs.
Click to expand...

Those spots all involved creative/ad agencies. I've never heard of a national spot NOT being produced through a creative/ad agency. At that point, the client is one step removed from the production usually, and you could shoot it on a Flip camera for all they care so long as the end product looks good. And by this point every creative firm worth spit knows that a 5D mkII or a 7D will get 75% of what a full size setup will get for a fraction of the cost. If that other 25% isn't important to you, why pay for it? It doesn't make good business sense. So long as the client is happy.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Those spots all involved creative/ad agencies. I've never heard of a national spot NOT being produced through a creative/ad agency. At that point, the client is one step removed from the production usually, and you could shoot it on a Flip camera for all they care so long as the end product looks good. And by this point every creative firm worth spit knows that a 5D mkII or a 7D will get 75% of what a full size setup will get for a fraction of the cost. If that other 25% isn't important to you, why pay for it? It doesn't make good business sense. So long as the client is happy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation ..now at least it makes sense.
 
I like the HMC150, it's been a magnificent camera, and has proven to be a magnificent investment.

But, relative to everything you wrote, I'd recommend looking at the new Canon XF100. Its codec has been formally approved by the BBC, and at B&H it's priced about the same as the HMC150. I have no idea what Canadian dealers plan on charging -- but check with B&H, because they've recently implemented some service for Canadians that pay all your fees and taxes.

Also, Redrock Micro has a new spinning glass 35mm lens adapter ("M3," I think) that's priced around US $1500. On paper its specs match the Letus Ultimate. In theory, you could use the XF100 as an ENG camera, and then stick it on that adapter for shallow focus interviews, etc. -- and all of it would be on a BBC approved acquisition codec.
 
I shot a national spot completely on the T2i/550d. Two in fact.

This wasn't a "national client", but a startup with a consumer product that wanted a "real brand" look. We used a fair amount of 720p stock footage, and even 1 or 2 quick DVX shots. It aired on several lifestyle channels and comedy central. No tech issues at all, everything flew through.

In a local market, clients often don't think "broadcast", but often a local media buy is affordable, especially if they get a great price on the spot (say from someone wanting to build up their reel). I have a real estate client (Planned communities, not a house brokerage deal) and we're talking about doing lifestyle videos for their web sites that are conceptual (I tend to say "how would claritin's agency show your product" & similar examples). they are very open to the idea of a local buy if we knock these outta the park.

I just finished a spot for another client, aesthetic medical centers. This will be a local/regional buy, but their expectation will be to go national in a year or so and the spots we use to introduce the business in this market will be re-used in new markets as we develop 2nd gen spots for established (local) markets. So everything will be finished to broadcast standards.

That spot was shot with the HMC150, with b-roll/background plates DSLR. There's no reason the HMC can't be used for broadcast; I found it to be the most affordable option with audio, WFM, etc, and I did extensive tests for settings and lighting, and noise control.

I fully expect Scarlet to be widely available in the next 9-12 months and I imagine I'll eventually be shooting a much less compressed 2k-ish cam within that timeframe, Scarlet or... something else? But for now, the HMC is pretty killer.

I think the biggest issue for shooting broadcast hi-def is focus; it's very easy to go a little soft and still look great on a small monitor. I've adapted a 22" Samsung 1080p for studio shooting (I do have a small Marshall for checking color, but for studio work I'm pretty familiar with my lighting rig so it's rarely a huge issue). It is VERY VERY cool to use a remote, get your hands off the camera and keep your eyes on the talent and a very big screen (a sub-$300 screen at that, which has the controls to get pretty accurate color and 1:1 pixel mapping). Next up is a manfrotto focus/iris/zoom remote and I'll never get outta my chair!

As far as employment goes - in a big market, also look into assisting in a still studio; you'll learn an awful lot about lighting (even with strobes there's a ton of tricks & gear that translate) and if you can get a steady gig, you may have weekend studio space you can use. You'll meet talent, art directors, stylists, and you could potentially make the pitch to start taking on some video work. All the top-notch national-account still guys I drink with started that way.
 
This "will they accept avchd" thing has gotten out of hand. Transcode it into a format they will accept. easy.
 
Denwa said:
This "will they accept avchd" thing has gotten out of hand. Transcode it into a format they will accept. easy.
Click to expand...

Respectfully to everyone -- it's not "out of hand" and entirely appropriate -- and in a significant way it's Panasonic's fault.

When AVCCAM was released with the 150 -- you had the P2 division of Panasonic out there poo-pooing AVCCAM in an effort to argue that the "DV" based DVCPROHD codec was not obsolete -- presumably to reassure everyone who invested in P2 that they weren't suckers and, of course, to keep people buying P2. I'm not blaming these people, and I assume they were just doing their job, and there's probably logic behind their actions.

But -- the fact is that AVCCAM was released by a company that had their P2 division explaining to the world exactly why AVCCAM was not good enough for "broadcast."

On the other end of the universe -- you had Canon devise a reasonably affordable and manageable codec ("Canon XF") -- and had the BBC approve it before it was functionally released.

Then, when the AF100 was released, and those exact same people were in charge of marketing that camera -- they all came out and apologized and said they were wrong when they first went out of their way to poo-poo AVCCAM and that it's now essentially as good as DVCPROHD.

So, Panasonic told the world that AVCCAM wasn't good enough for broadcast, and the world believed them. On the other hand -- Canon created an affordable and manageable codec ("XF") and told the world that it was good enough for broadcast -- and the world believed them.

So, now you've got the OP of this thread illustrating an intelligent position and asking well thought out questions -- and the real answer to his question depends on when he asked it. Before the AF100, no, only P2 cameras can accomplish his mission. After the AF100, yes AVCCAM can accomplish his mission.

The problem is that Panasonic "poisoned the well," and at the moment the tech guys at TV stations/networks have been told they can't take AVCCAM seriously (and, ironically, this is now crippling the AF100.) Can relatively smart producers get around this? Sure. They can lie and/or transcode or use a separate recorder.

The OP's alternative, at about the same price as the HMC150, is the Canon xf100 with the XF codec -- a codec approved by the BBC before (I think 'before') it was released.

So, if Panasonic had made an effort to promote AVCCAM as a broadcast capable format, and they could have, then you'd have never, ever had the question "will they accept" AVCCAM.
 
Of course, if Panasonic would just get down to business and without any excuses make several affordable, hand-held models recording AVC-I to SDXC cards, we'd all win and the question would be moot.
 
Canon's XF100 seems almost too good to be true but here are my issues with it.

#1: I dont see any ND filter selector and have heard that the camera applys them when neccessary (auto) I aint an auto anthing kid of guy! I am sure there is a manual mode but it looks like the screen navigates menus like their consumer vixia cameras = too slow!

#2: Volume pots, I see xlr ins, with options for line & mic or phantom power....but where are the audio pots?

#3: Manual zoom.... personaly I am so comfortable with having focus, zoom, and iris all have proper manual rings.... I can get over the hmc150's little iris wheel but the ability to snap zoom is nice.

#4: The codec is nice, but I would have to invest in more media.... I already have several gigs of SDHC cards for my DSLR

#5: SMALL, the hardest part for me right now is people see a DSLR or small camera and think amature..... I even use to get greif shoothing with EX3's about three years ago when a local guy was more confortable with a shooter who brought a full size shoulder cam, dv SD 4:3 only..... but he thought bigger was better.....
Now I know it seems silly to pick a camera based on "image" but I must admit I have seen people who have the same rig as me.... but they needlsy throw a mattebox on and clients go crazy!

anyway, you guys have been fantastic!
 
Plazer said:
Canon's XF100 seems almost too good to be true but here are my issues with it.

#1: I dont see any ND filter selector and have heard that the camera applys them when neccessary (auto) I aint an auto anthing kid of guy! I am sure there is a manual mode but it looks like the screen navigates menus like their consumer vixia cameras = too slow!

#2: Volume pots, I see xlr ins, with options for line & mic or phantom power....but where are the audio pots?

#3: Manual zoom.... personaly I am so comfortable with having focus, zoom, and iris all have proper manual rings.... I can get over the hmc150's little iris wheel but the ability to snap zoom is nice.

#4: The codec is nice, but I would have to invest in more media.... I already have several gigs of SDHC cards for my DSLR

#5: SMALL, the hardest part for me right now is people see a DSLR or small camera and think amature..... I even use to get greif shoothing with EX3's about three years ago when a local guy was more confortable with a shooter who brought a full size shoulder cam, dv SD 4:3 only..... but he thought bigger was better.....
Now I know it seems silly to pick a camera based on "image" but I must admit I have seen people who have the same rig as me.... but they needlsy throw a mattebox on and clients go crazy!

anyway, you guys have been fantastic!
Click to expand...

The ND can be switched off completely, but when it's engaged the camera will decide when it's needed...but just leave it switched off until YOU decide you want it on. It's kind of like the gain on my HFS200...there is no true manual "I want this much gain" control, but if you set the gain limit adj. in 1db increments, you essentially have the same thing because the camera will apply gain to that limit (you just have to test a bit). The XF has full control over the gain section, which is nice. Also there are 10 customizable buttons on the XF100, so I'm sure manual control can be very swift and tailored to your use. The camera is smallish, but it weighs over 2lbs, so it's not like the high end consumer stuff. Anyway, might be worth a look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top