Said goodbye to my 500

The BBC's list of acceptable HD cams doesn't include the 500 - they consider it SD, even though it has a strong codec. It's all in the chips, I guess. Yet the XF300 makes their list for full acquisition, even though it has 1/3" chips. The HPX300 didn't make the list, not sure about the 370.
The EX line isn't acceptable because of the codec. Add a Nano, and you're OK.

And my 500 and I recently lost a freelance job to a 370. The client specifically wanted an AVC-intra codec. The 1/3" CMOS was fine with them. That's when I began to wonder if it was time to upgrade.
 
vanvideo said:
And my 500 and I recently lost a freelance job to a 370. The client specifically wanted an AVC-intra codec. The 1/3" CMOS was fine with them. That's when I began to wonder if it was time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Hmm If they wanted a 370 you can consider rental.
 
The BBC's list of acceptable HD cams doesn't include the 500
Click to expand...

This is ironic. The BBC pioneered the English language acceptance of super16 for television production, and many of their shows (like POIROT for instance) that have been remastered still look better than anything I've seen shot with a 5D - not sharper, better. It shouldn't always be about pixels and resolution. For example, fine crystal vs fine stoneware. Crystal is clean and clear and sharp and has it's place, but stoneware is organic and freeform - and is art.

As an independent documentary filmmaker living 380 miles from LA I need to own my equipment, rental just isn't an option - nor is the lugging around of external devices. So, after considering options (like a used Varicam w/ tape drive) I plunked down cash for a 500 and customized it for my use - mostly because of the form factor and the reliability of P2 cards. And now I am expected to "upgrade" because of a codec? Uh uh, I like the look of the images from the 500.

Most of the footage I've seen so far from the AF100 looks like not-very-good video with shallow depth of field - I know, it's a pre-production camera at this point, and I do have faith in Panasonic's ability to create a good image - But I'm not going to be held hostage by "technology".

Luckily for me there's a little more latitude allowed for social-issue documentaries in terms of cameras - I could (and have) use a Canon HV40 and get it broadcast. But, as a long time cinematographer, I would feel very comfortable using the 500 for narrative production as well.
 
Thre's been fantastic video taken over the years with all differing formats and cameras, and some not so good also, in the end, it comes down to the "conent" not the "quality" that counts ....
amd may I agree with Mac, if we all could just rent gear that suited every job, plus if every job had a budget allowing for that, we'd all be happy campers, BUT, the real world is much more complicated.
I recently did a 3 cam music DVD shoot, used my P2 2/3" chip for main, HPX172 P2 for roving colour, and a el-cheapo ($800) 3chip DV for fixed close-up of guitar. venue had LED light / fluro's / and tungsten mix.
In post all were married together nicely,it was low budget shoot n edit, client and DVD purchasers were very pleased with the end result.

I softly suggest to anyone in this industry "if your gear can't pay for it's self in say a 12-18month period, then find some other form of occupation".

cheers
tomk
olinevideo.com.au
 
Last edited:
That's right, in my case my 500 paid for itself in less than 3 months...

But another thing to consider is this - Many times a long form film can take upwards of 3 years to complete (that's the case with my last feature documentary BOYHOOD SHADOWS). If you start out shooting with a chosen codec, in my case DVCPRO HD 720/24pn, and at then at end of that time that codec has become out-of-fashion, you become a victim of technology advancing in opposition to content.

Many over on the AF100 forum are ready to jump on that camera (I'll admit that I'll probably buy one too, because they're cheap and I like to experiment) but if you commit to a long project with it, I can guarantee it will be obsolete before you're finished. I've already gotten shudders from the network I'm currently speaking with about AVCHD, what's going to happen in three years?
 
Hi Mac,
Yes , I remember when we were forced to switch from analogue to SDI a few years ago for playout down the pipe, we purchased an expensive convertor, (and later a Camera that plays out SDI)
But as we were the only ones to have it at the time, it paid it's way in about a month...It like a lot of gear owes us nothing, so its handy to keep in the arsenal of depleted technology.

Yes I've seen many changes over the past 30 years in TV, (that's my area). it seems that most cams/formats/codecs/media etc these days are good but for a short time,2-3years, I'd love to see a "broadcast standard" re-introduced, but
it appears that the manufacturers just want to continually flood teh lastest n greatest new products etc on the market.. thus making us all want to commit to a cam/codec/ that has not even hit the market place, as you alluded to..

Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
There're arguments on both sides - I'd hate to see us stuck with something like Beta SP again simply because it's the "broadcast standard". The standard should be "Does the image serve the content?" For instance, since it's Halloween, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT would not have been as effective if it had been shot with a Panaflex.

To be honest, many of these network directives are put in place to separate the men from the boys. It's easier for them to wade through proposals if they can eliminate the people without the "latest and greatest". Anyone can buy a decent camera these days, that doesn't make them filmmakers. Problem is, many executives really can't tell the difference (witness all the crap on TV). Arbitrarily latching on to a codec is a simple filter to make their work easier.

That's true of the "clients" mentioned in this thread as well. Whenever a client demands a specific codec, I ask where they get their information from. If it's something they've heard but not experienced, I sit them in front of a big TV and show them my reel. The funder for BOYHOOD SHADOWS specifically requested DVCPRO HD, I asked why, and they said because it had a good reputation for transfer to 35mm, which was a possible goal. That was a fair assessment and I complied. That's when I bought my 500. If a 5D is requested because it fits into small places (as mentioned somewhere else here) then that's a fair assessment as well. The choice should serve the content.
 
Last edited:
Yeah i mean theres just no point buying cameras to chase 'broadcast requirements' i mean they keep changing and will always keep changing long before most DoPs/directors manage to pay off there gear hehe. In the end of the day any broadcast commission can be produced via rental equipment that meets there precise requirement. It just makes no sense for indie/freelancers to be investing such enormous sums of money trying to chase elusive 'standards' in the fairly unrealistic hope (for most lets be brutal) of there particular shows/films that havent even been commissioned anyway, actually getting played on air.

I personally love the HPX500 and even use it with an SD lens, a Canon 6x8 just because i like the look. Its hilarious but no 1080p is really obsolete to the eye of the audience (thats just a joke.) I projected SD movies onto a huge outdoor sea cliff for a film festival i organised - truth... they looked fine. They always have...

So i say, let the broadcaster pay for ur new camera meeting any magical requirement... before ever spending cash like that of your own on chasing these 'requirements.' What Noel said about having an af100 or something modest for personal projects is entirely right.

(takes a bit before u realise that too!)
 
Heh Lawrie Im with you on let others pay. For Industrials the AF100 will do just fine, and then outside that - let the agency etc pay.

I should say this: I made a previous statement that I thought the codec on the 500 was getting a little tired. Thinking about that - that's purely subjective.
 
Noel: Several months after I bought my 500 Barry wrote somewhere on this site that "DVCPRO HD is getting long in the tooth". That was, like, two years ago. It may be an old (oh my gosh, like 5-6 years old!) codec but the pictures still look good.

I've been looking at the AF100 footage that's bombarding the internet, and it's nice I guess, but it amuses me that after years of people demanding 4.2.2 they're now willing to give it up for shallow depth of field. DVCPRO HD may be long in the tooth, but it still looks damn good.

Admittedly, I've been vacilating about the AF100 because it's so cheap. But, personally, I'll probably wait until one of the manufacturers gets the form factor right, that's more important to me than the codec.
 
Tom 4 said:
Hi Noel,
Wish I could hire gear, but in my location it's a day to get it, a day use say, and a day to return it, that's at best if nothing goes wrong.... My clients won't pay for that luxury... everything comes down to budget in the end.
I'm still happily using my Now Jurrassic Park SPX800 only thing that has broken in all the years I've owned it, was the flip out screen electronic flat cable, a mere $120 and 30mins got a new one fitted (by myself).
Interesting that I've only had one potential client ask for High Def, most are more than happy with SD when they realise the majority of channels in OZ are still SD, go figure.

Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,
Have you ever tried to upconvert to HD the footage from your SPX800? If so, it is better to start with 50i or 25P?
Thanks a lot.

Gaetano
 
Gaman said:
Hi Tom,
Have you ever tried to upconvert to HD the footage from your SPX800? If so, it is better to start with 50i or 25P?
Thanks a lot.

Gaetano
Click to expand...

Yes I have and it looks fine, I shoot 50i, never used 50P, vision I send to my network clients is up scaled by them to HD for their HD channels, never had an issue , even our national Broadcaster here in OZ still shoot with the SPX900 ( SD, same cam as my SPX800 but has extra filter wheel) and that provides pictures that will stand up very well against most current cams being used here for ENG and production.
HD still has a long way to go for broad acceptance, SD is still king of the castle here downunder.

Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
Last edited:
Many thanks, Tom.
Things in Italy are not that much differnts. The format for the news is Betacam SX and many facilities still use the old SP version. We have few HD channels (satellite only).
16:9 is still in letterbox mode and HD is used for hi-end productions (but aired in SD).

Take care.
Gaetano
 
Hi Gaetano,
SX was and still is a great format for news, But, the solid state P2 and even XDcam is much faster/easier in the news environment than the Tape based cams, so the tape cams/vtr's are being dumped here at dirt cheap prices on the used market.
I've used P2 now for some years it's great, I recently used a XDcam HD , it was ok, But in my opinion it responded slower than the P2 Pana when you put it under pressure, I prefer the image quality of the Pana, but's that just me..

Cheers from Downunder
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
Tom, I prefer the Panasonic "look" too.
About HD, I've seen some footage from XDCAM HD (35mbps) and I found it far behind DVCPRO HD in terms of overall image quality.

I've sold my Digital-S gear (the most unlucky format ever...) and looking to get a P2 cam. Since I don't need HD think that a SPX900 or 800 would be fine.

Take care.
Gaetano
 
been using my 500 panny for almost three years now... the more time i spend with it, the more i love it. shallow dof? fashion. everybody loves shallow dof but it's overused, people will get over it. it's not shallow dof what makes cinema look like cinema. and avchd ? sorry... when panasonic will release something like af101 with avc-i, proper lens mount etc, then i'll think.
 
Gaman said:
Tom, I prefer the Panasonic "look" too.
About HD, I've seen some footage from XDCAM HD (35mbps) and I found it far behind DVCPRO HD in terms of overall image quality.

I've sold my Digital-S gear (the most unlucky format ever...) and looking to get a P2 cam. Since I don't need HD think that a SPX900 or 800 would be fine.

Take care.
Gaetano
Click to expand...

Digital S, WOW, you were a thrill seeker, it never got off the ground here, There's a few SPX800 or SPX900 cams out in the market now good solid old units, But If I were buying another cam I'd definatetly get a HD switchable
as the 500 or another of the range they are lighter than the 800 and 900's, they are long in the tooth now so if a more current cam came up that would be a wiser move.
Mine was an ex Canada winter olympics camera, only thing that's broken was the flex cable for the flip out screen, $120 for a new one, and 30 mins fixed that myself. been one of the best cams i've owned.

Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
Tom, I've found an ex-demo SPX900 with VF20W and two used 8 gig P2 cards for 4600 GBP (5400 Euros or 7450 AUD), what you think about that price?
Thanks.

Gaetano
 
If It also has the SDI card fitted, it would be a bargain. even if it hasen't it sounds like good value, 2" viewfinder is what i have it's great (check it's condition and past usage), In my experience they are great old cams, and can hold their own against the current range.
depending on your use for it, 2 x 8gig cards are very handy for news work, and SDI is vital these days, if your doing longer events some 32's or even a 64 would be nice, remember you only have to buy them once so don't be scraed of the cost.
If you have a good 3/4" SD lens that will be nice to fit on to, (no need for extra cost of the newer HD lenses)

Do your homework on the "whole package" out lay $'s , and make your decision bearing in mind your use for it.
Goodluck
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top