Waaayyyy off-topic. I'm throwing in the towel . . . I'M THROUGH WITH 1/3" CAMERAS!!!

Ralph Oshiro

Ralph Oshiro

Veteran
Waaayyyy off-topic. I'm throwing in the towel . . . I'M THROUGH WITH 1/3" CAMERAS!!!

Well, I've finally decided . . . I'M THROUGH WITH 1/3" CAMERAS!!!

I'm going 2/3", 16:9, 24P. I'm buying a standard-definition Sony DSR450WSL. It's an 800-line, 1038 x 1008-pixel (980 x 908 usable), f/11 DVCAM camcorder. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know DVCAM is only 4:1:1. So what? It still beats analog BetacamSP in chroma SNR (according to tests performed by a broadcast trade magazine a few years ago) if you put a decent camera head on it--AND analog BetacamSP looks pretty damn good (NO visible chroma noise AT ALL from well-lit BVW400A footage I've shot at 0dB). And I've shot a lot of stuff with the older Sony mid-line 2/3" camera, the DSR500WSL/1, which looked GREAT. The brand-spankin' new DSR450 even employs an improved HAD "EX" 2/3" CCD sensor which should make even better pictures than the older DSR500 could muster, and THAT camera looked GREAT! At work, I use BVW400A and BVW600 BetacamSP cameras--and the DSR500 footage totally holds up.

Look . . . 800 lines of horizontal resolution in 16:9 (850 lines in 4:3), 65dB video signal-to-noise ratio, AND, finally, it's capable of 24P @ 1/48th shutter (or even below). All this for a street price of $14,999 (or less), including the viewfinder, mic, and plate! I can get the cheap Fuji or Canon 20:1 for $3K AND the cheap Canon 12:1 wide-angle for about $5k. I just got a four-position Anton Bauer charger for the Steadicam Flyer I just bought, so all I need is a couple of ProPak14s and I'm good to go.

After buying generation after generation of sub-$5K DV camcorders (Sony VX1000/Sony VX2000/Panasonic DVX100--each one with dual chargers, four batteries each, and the requisite Century Precision accessory optics--all of which actually exceeds the cost of the DSR450 body when added all up) and NEVER being satisfied with the chroma noise level that these things produce, I'm finally gonna bite the bullet and go 2/3". NEVER before has a 2/3" camera this good been THIS CHEAP!!! And it's the first sub-$20K, 2/3" camera on the market to do 24P!!! I really think Sony did this one right, AND brought it in at EXACTLY the price point I was hoping for (<$15,000). Yeah, it's still tape. But have you seen how much an XDCAM with the 24P board option with glass costs? And forget about XDCAM HD--that's gonna be a fortune with glass!

And the best thing about it? I'll have MUCH shallower depth-of-field capability with the larger CCDs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the HVX200's 60fps high-speed capability and 100-mbit DVCPRO HD recording capability will be great, but it's STILL ONLY A 1/3" CCD CAMERA!!! PLUS, and possibly most importantly, I can still maintain my current DV workflow!!! Yayyyy!!! I'll FINALLY be a happy camper!!!
 
Edalgo_Alvarez said:
You have most certainly seen the light, hallelujah!
Click to expand...
Yup, and that's what I've been MOST concerned about! "LIGHT!" Low-light, to be specific . . . I'll be way more confident with those big, fat 2/3" chips collecting all that light, when shooting my all night exterior, super-low budget 24P indie feature. Everything I shoot will be lit with ambient mercury vapor street lighting and small KinoFlos for fill. I'm REALLY going to need that f/11 sensitivity!
 
NBCshooter said:
Look . . . 800 lines of horizontal resolution in 16:9 (850 lines in 4:3),
Click to expand...

Remember that only 480 NTSC/576 PAL will be recorded to the DVCAM tape.

The 2/3 inch Sonys are great, no noise even in low light, BUT if people start asking for HD content, you will be left in the lurch. It will be interesting to see how the SD output of the HVX and HD100 compare to the 2/3" cameras.
 
No, no, no, mmm, you are WRONG. You are confusing the PAL/NTSC linecount with horizontal resolution. Horisontal resolution is the maximum number of Vertical lines that can be read/discerned across the picture. It's called horisontal rezolution because you determine it by counting horizontally. As for the 800 line, that is the camera head capability, the DV codec will take care of it and bring it down to about 480-500 lines on the recorded material. NBC, have you considered the SDX900 if you want to stay in the SD 2/3" world? It gives you 411, 422, 24p and other things Sony never heard of...
 
Yeah, the SDX900 is like $10K more money, PLUS I'd need a real VTR to playback the DVCPRO50 footage. Like I said, I've shot a lot of 4:1:1 DSR500 footage, and it looks GREAT.
 
dj200423 said:
Why no hvx? :(
Click to expand...
Just because I don't think I'll get the quiet picture and light sensitivity I'm looking for out of ANY 1/3" camera, EVEN if I'm recording to a super-high data rate format. My BIG reason for going 2/3" is that 1/3" and even 1/2" CCD-based cameras are NOISY (high chroma noise).
 
NBCshooter said:
Just because I don't think I'll get the quiet picture and light sensitivity I'm looking for out of ANY 1/3" camera, EVEN if I'm recording to a super-high data rate format. My BIG reason for going 2/3" is that 1/3" and even 1/2" CCD-based cameras are NOISY (high chroma noise).
Click to expand...

I agree with NBC, nothing beats having the real estate, and you could run a herd of nice quiet chroma cattle on the wide open spaces of 2/3" chips.

--Ralph
 
thisiswells said:
The only thing I would be concerned about is weight of the camera (14.9lbs) on the Steadicam Flyer which has a maximum weight capacity of 15lbs. I've read and been told it's generally best to push a steadicam only around 60% of it's maximum weight unless you want to endlessly struggle.
Click to expand...
Yup, I'm on the razor's edge as far as my max weight goes. But once I lose the EVF, mic/mic holder and camera-mounted brick (the camera will be powered by the same brick as the Steadicam's), I should shed a few pounds and be well under the 15 lb. max weight.

Not sure about the 60% deal. I used to own an old Steadicam Model II, and with an Ikegami HL79 mounted to it (DAMN, that thing was heavy), it seemed to work just fine, and that was definitely maxing out the capacity of my Model II's arm. I even hard-mounted my arm once to the back of a pick-up truck for some vehicle shots. That arm took a whole lot of vertical travel in that configuration, and the shots were as smooth as silk. Hopefully that 60% figure is hogwash. Where'd you hear that, by the way?

As far as struggling goes, if the rig is perfectly trimmed (balanced), there is no "struggle" whatsoever required to maintain your frame. The only concern would be that the arm would "bottom out" but since it's supposedly good for 15 lbs., I think it should be fine.

Yup, I certainly agree about the form factor benefits of the smaller cameras. You can really get a lot of shots not possible with full-size cameras (e.g., vehicle interiors, etc.). But this noise thing is killing me. Everything I'm shooting is low light, dark moody stuff. You would not believe how bad my first-generation night exterior DVX100 footage looks (noise like a snowstorm at 0dB)!
 
mmm said:
Remember that only 480 NTSC/576 PAL will be recorded to the DVCAM tape.
Click to expand...
I think you're a bit confused there, but here's the point . . . say you shoot with an 800-line camera and put that onto a DV tape. Then shoot with a 500-line camera and put that onto tape. Guess which footage looks WAAAAYYY sharper? Even though the DV tape format is only capable of resolving about 480-500 lines, as NZ states, when you feed the encoder a high resolution signal, it still looks way better than when you feed the encoder a low-res signal.
 
author said:
I agree with NBC, nothing beats having the real estate, and you could run a herd of nice quiet chroma cattle on the wide open spaces of 2/3" chips.
Click to expand...
You have a way with words, there, Author!
 
PanasonicNZ said:
No, no, no, mmm, you are WRONG. You are confusing the PAL/NTSC linecount with horizontal resolution. Horisontal resolution is the maximum number of Vertical lines that can be read/discerned across the picture. It's called horisontal rezolution because you determine it by counting horizontally. As for the 800 line, that is the camera head capability, the DV codec will take care of it and bring it down to about 480-500 lines on the recorded material. NBC, have you considered the SDX900 if you want to stay in the SD 2/3" world? It gives you 411, 422, 24p and other things Sony never heard of...
Click to expand...

I was just making the point that your recorded resolution is limited to 720x576/480 if you are recording to DVCAM. I guess I phrased it wrongly/badly and read the hoizontal rez as vertical... sorry!

I was worried that NBC thought he was getting a higher resolution picture than he was...but he obviously realises that anyway. :thumbsup:

I have heard people say in the past "Yeah but the Sony DSR-*** is 800 lines so it is better than HD at 720." ...or words to that effect. I just wanted to clarify that this is not the case.

I was also wondering why the rez is higher in 4:3 (850lines) that 16:9 (800) for that camera?
 
What I'd like to see is Panasonic upgrade the SDX 800 to HD and keep the pricing down to it's current level. That would set a strong future for 2/3 CCD cams. Lower Cam weight is a big plus!
 
author said:
I agree with NBC, nothing beats having the real estate, and you could run a herd of nice quiet chroma cattle on the wide open spaces of 2/3" chips.

--Ralph
Click to expand...


You are such a Nerd!






:thumbsup:
 
Well, I've been fretting the weight issue all night now . . . the low cost, wide-angle lens Canon makes is the Canon YJ12x6.5BKRS 2/3" 12:1 and I think it weighs nearly 4 pounds. Subtract the Sony V-mount Li-ion brick (1.9 lbs.) and EVF, and HOPEFULLY, I'm still under 15 lbs. It's unclear, however, when Tiffen states that the Flyer can take a camera as heavy as "15 lbs." wheather they're factoring in the Steadicam's battery or not. Since I bought the Flyer version which takes Anton Bauer batteries, I can easily power the rig and the camera from a single Trimpac (2.75 lbs.) or a ProPak14 (5.125 lbs.).

So, let's see . . . the camera without EVF I think weighs in at 8 lbs. 10oz. (or 8.625 lbs.). Add the 4 lbs. for the lens and 2.75 lbs. for a Trimpac, PLUS, say 1.5 lbs. for the VCT-U14, and now I'm at . . . 16.9 lbs.!!! If I subtract the Trimpac from the "camera weight" I'm left with a 14.125 lb. payload. So the key question is if the 15 lbs. max. weight does NOT include the Steadicam battery. I have a feeling it doesn't, since the Steadicam rep at NAB said you could put a stripped-down Varicam on the Flyer and it would work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top