I'm getting ready to produce a feature length documentary and I've had dizzying conversations about what equipment to buy. The advice I've heard has included:
1. You could shoot the entire thing w/ a DVX 200 and be delighted with the outcome.
2. You'll never get what you want/need with a 1/3 chip camera, you have to stretch to the 2/3 to really get the quality you want.
3. Forget the DVX200, go for the HPX 170 because of its wider lens and solid state
4. Don't get locked in to p2 cards, you need a tape option as an alternative
5. You need to go with the HPX 300 because you will need lens interchangeability
6. The 300 has shutter aberrations and the stock lens sucks and you'll need to upgrade and that will cost big cash
7. It seems that there' always someone who will cite imaging problems with just about all the non-varicam Panasonics
7. And everything you can imagine in between.
I want my film to be gorgeous but it's not a cinematic film by nature. There will be creative exteriors, but the bulk of shots will be interviews, PBS-style. I want to shoot HD, 24p. I'll spend the cash if it's justified. I figure if I'm going to put some cash into equipment, I might as buy into the package that will give me the greatest range of use, most advanced technology/imaging capacity, sound, etc. Because there will be a few instances when we will be shooting gorilla-style and attempting to obtain footage in tough environments that are going to require discretion and where we want to draw as little attention to our camera as possible, I've thought having a HVX 200 would be smart for this purpose, but I"d like to have something else as our primary package that will offer much greater range and options.
Final note, is that yesterday I had a conversation with a DP who said basically, "Hey, you're not shooting Angelina Jolie...you're shooting suits with great, eye popping facts and info and in the end it's the content that matters. Your viewers are never going to be making comments about your lens sharpness, or really be sophisticated enough to comment about much, aesthetically. Look at Supersize Me, look at Michael Moore's films...were people bad mouthing the aesthetics or lens choice or even questioning the equipment used?Satisfactory images and sound were obtained to convey an important message..."
So I come to you folks here and ask, what do you think? What really counts? What can one "Get away with" in terms of today's HD cams..especially the Panasonics?
1. You could shoot the entire thing w/ a DVX 200 and be delighted with the outcome.
2. You'll never get what you want/need with a 1/3 chip camera, you have to stretch to the 2/3 to really get the quality you want.
3. Forget the DVX200, go for the HPX 170 because of its wider lens and solid state
4. Don't get locked in to p2 cards, you need a tape option as an alternative
5. You need to go with the HPX 300 because you will need lens interchangeability
6. The 300 has shutter aberrations and the stock lens sucks and you'll need to upgrade and that will cost big cash
7. It seems that there' always someone who will cite imaging problems with just about all the non-varicam Panasonics
7. And everything you can imagine in between.
I want my film to be gorgeous but it's not a cinematic film by nature. There will be creative exteriors, but the bulk of shots will be interviews, PBS-style. I want to shoot HD, 24p. I'll spend the cash if it's justified. I figure if I'm going to put some cash into equipment, I might as buy into the package that will give me the greatest range of use, most advanced technology/imaging capacity, sound, etc. Because there will be a few instances when we will be shooting gorilla-style and attempting to obtain footage in tough environments that are going to require discretion and where we want to draw as little attention to our camera as possible, I've thought having a HVX 200 would be smart for this purpose, but I"d like to have something else as our primary package that will offer much greater range and options.
Final note, is that yesterday I had a conversation with a DP who said basically, "Hey, you're not shooting Angelina Jolie...you're shooting suits with great, eye popping facts and info and in the end it's the content that matters. Your viewers are never going to be making comments about your lens sharpness, or really be sophisticated enough to comment about much, aesthetically. Look at Supersize Me, look at Michael Moore's films...were people bad mouthing the aesthetics or lens choice or even questioning the equipment used?Satisfactory images and sound were obtained to convey an important message..."
So I come to you folks here and ask, what do you think? What really counts? What can one "Get away with" in terms of today's HD cams..especially the Panasonics?
Last edited:
