Whoa. Sony, Panny, and now Canon? Which ONE?

mmm said:
These cheaper cameras are obviously inferior, but by saying they are not "pro" you are inferring the operator is not a professional. Some of the best footage I have ever seen has come from VERY talented people using lower-end cameras. Sometimes they are the correct tool for a professional to use, be it though budget, portability or discreetness.
Click to expand...

Nono, I did say they can be used in a pro environment. And by that I mean that in the right case and handeled by the right people these cams are no doubt pro tools (not the software :) ). Like I said, I use a DVX also. Because it meets the requirements right now and I know what I'm doing with it. I just didn't agree with the JVC being the only pro camera among this bunch. It's as much (and less) pro as the rest for me.
Off course the operator is the big deal with ANY camera. Give somebody that can shoot the most pathetic camera ever built and he or she will still shoot better than a clueless guy with a much better cam. Can't argue there.
 
As a broadcast pro I strive for the best I can. That is not to say that I don't use a DVX100 currently to get the wide shot of a makeover show I do for HGTV, or that MTV doesn't use Sony HDV cameras, but when it comes to standards always starting with the best you can is a great idea and maintains a higher standard.

It's not that we could not shoot a program on a DVX, but we'd rather use more robust formats and equipment that simply raises the bar on what our outcome looks like and for reliable operation. I'm not trying nor have I ever mentioned anything about what makes a person pro, simply what is a professional standard camera. Take those Roscotronics lights. I ordered one of these fixtures (G-200) some time ago to see what they were all about. I added it to my light kit and proceeded to use it with other more professionally made fixtures. It no longer is in my kit as it suffered after some time and I could not keep it working anymore. (Doors got bent and loose, lamp terminals pitted and power cord intermittent.) So if I had no budget, I would use them if they were all I can afford, but more professionally designed lights handle the rigors of real world use better. It's sort of like the women who came into one of our used car dealerships the other day. She was buying junkers every 6 months to a year for $2500. We offered her a 2005 car with less than 14k on the odometer and a warranty for that car as long as she owned it. The payments were $280 a month. She needed to be talked into it because she could not understand that $280 a month was a better deal than buying a junker every six months for a few grand which had no guarantee.

XLRs don't make a camera pro camera rather they make it a camera that can be marketed a different way. Prosumer is defined as a camera that is between consumer and pro and that is what these cameras we discuss are. Prosumer is like comparing a lesser made light to a truly professional light. Pro equipment uses different transports, much higher end electronics, much better lenses, and larger CCDs and offers different features and is designed for abuse of everyday use. DV cameras have a head life of less than 200 hours. My Betacam has gone for 12 years of a hundred thousand hours of use without a head change. So who cares?

Well about the only thing I care about are standards, not what you use the camera for, or what defines you as a pro. DVCAM is a format that found some use in broadcast television, not because it was good, but because it was cheap and in some cases (like remote news operations, small so fit a niche). In fact Sony had a heck of a time when news folks wanted to us DVCAM because it couldn't be edited as it had audio sync problems inn the beginning. So Sony worked hard and fast in the beginning to fix that so it could be used for something it wasn't designed for. BUt today while News organizations will buy these camera as throwaways or back up, they are not the first line pro cameras used for daily work. I base my pro equipment list on the broadcast world I work in so if you do weddings, or court cases, then you are basing your pro list on what you do. They will be substantially different. Neither of our lists is better or worse, just different.

So my list would include everything from a Panasonic AJ-D700 to a Sony F-950 or any camera or piece of equipment found on a professional rental list such as what http://www.lvrusa.com/RentalCatalog.cfm offers. That is not to ay a DVX100 would be my first choice for a TV program, it would not. But like my HGTV example the size of the camera makes for a nice camera I can throw up on high tripod and record a room as it's being made over with. For the rest of the stuff involving people I use a betacam.

By handing a DV camera to a producer, production companies cut thousands of dollars off their budgets. They still get pictures but often pictures that lack depth and often pictures that don't look as good as a better camera operated by a person who dedicates their profession to it might look. Does it mater for a program like American Chopper? yes and no. No because one might say the content doesn't need a $40k camera. Yes because with each program that goes the cheap route, we loose the quality that we used to obtain (I see it clearly) and we lesson everyones importance. What does that mean? A producer used to get paid $500 a day to produce. He worked with a dedicated camera crew that specialized in making pictures, and doing it well. Now he is given a camera and told to do that same thing for the same money. It's tough enough to produce a segment but to then also have to make good pictures pushes folks talent and often means something has to give, either in the producing end or the shooting end.

And the biggest effect? Overall everyone looses out in television. Whereas we used to produce a fantastic looking show that is well produced for say $25k and episode, now we only have $13k and episode and everyone in that chain of production from talent to the shows executive producer makes a lot less and works a lot more to make up for not having enough in the first place.

Many of you here might not understand it here on what is more a prosumer board but it's a cheapening of every aspect of a profession. In the end it means less people will be able to get work and those that do will not be paid what they are worth. For a producer like me, it is more of a challenge to maintain quality but the positive side for me is it means I have to work harder to prove everyone wrong which helps propagate the problem further because when I succeed it sets the bar lower by showing that it can be done. I am about to start up a second season of a program I produce for The Fine Living Channel. We shoot the program on Betacam. Overall our first season budget was almost half of what it should be. But all of use from production to edit worked out of love and made it look like a $30k show. It paid off as we created a program for half the money it should have cost and they raised the budget on the second season to a more livable cost. What we lost the first season leaves bit of bad taste as we worked so hard and didn't get much for the effort. But a second season helps clean up that taste. And this year I have more budget for new equipment like a jib and steadicam for the program. But it would be nice to have more folks on the roster but we simply can't hire more which means that cutting out the budget leaves us with less and that is bad for everyone, namely the 100 resumes a month I get for folks looking for work.
 
Well, it's just your defenition, so we can leave it at that (although, it's contracted of 2 words and indicates another meaning). Whatever you describe as pro and non-pro is fine.

BUT, since when doesn't JVC produce PRO? DIGITAL S is a very robust 1/2inch form factor 4:2:2 system. You're not calling that pro-sumer are you? Not even to your standards. The JVC GY-DV700 is the *choice* of the biggest broadcaster in Europe...

It's not because you might not be fully aware of the complete *pro* video gear landscape you can make some assumptions... There are 3 pro video manufacturers: JVC, panasonic and SONY. Ikegami seems out of the equation...
 
Walter_Graff said:
As a broadcast pro I strive for the best I can. That is not to say that I don't use a DVX100 currently to get the wide shot of a makeover show I do for HGTV, or that MTV doesn't use Sony HDV cameras, but when it comes to standards always starting with the best you can is a great idea and maintains a higher standard.

It's not that we could not shoot a program on a DVX, but we'd rather use more robust formats and equipment that simply raises the bar on what our outcome looks like and for reliable operation. I'm not trying nor have I ever mentioned anything about what makes a person pro, simply what is a professional standard camera. Take those Roscotronics lights. I ordered one of these fixtures (G-200) some time ago to see what they were all about. I added it to my light kit and proceeded to use it with other more professionally made fixtures. It no longer is in my kit as it suffered after some time and I could not keep it working anymore. (Doors got bent and loose, lamp terminals pitted and power cord intermittent.) So if I had no budget, I would use them if they were all I can afford, but more professionally designed lights handle the rigors of real world use better. It's sort of like the women who came into one of our used car dealerships the other day. She was buying junkers every 6 months to a year for $2500. We offered her a 2005 car with less than 14k on the odometer and a warranty for that car as long as she owned it. The payments were $280 a month. She needed to be talked into it because she could not understand that $280 a month was a better deal than buying a junker every six months for a few grand which had no guarantee.

XLRs don't make a camera pro camera rather they make it a camera that can be marketed a different way. Prosumer is defined as a camera that is between consumer and pro and that is what these cameras we discuss are. Prosumer is like comparing a lesser made light to a truly professional light. Pro equipment uses different transports, much higher end electronics, much better lenses, and larger CCDs and offers different features and is designed for abuse of everyday use. DV cameras have a head life of less than 200 hours. My Betacam has gone for 12 years of a hundred thousand hours of use without a head change. So who cares?

Well about the only thing I care about are standards, not what you use the camera for, or what defines you as a pro. DVCAM is a format that found some use in broadcast television, not because it was good, but because it was cheap and in some cases (like remote news operations, small so fit a niche). In fact Sony had a heck of a time when news folks wanted to us DVCAM because it couldn't be edited as it had audio sync problems inn the beginning. So Sony worked hard and fast in the beginning to fix that so it could be used for something it wasn't designed for. BUt today while News organizations will buy these camera as throwaways or back up, they are not the first line pro cameras used for daily work. I base my pro equipment list on the broadcast world I work in so if you do weddings, or court cases, then you are basing your pro list on what you do. They will be substantially different. Neither of our lists is better or worse, just different.

So my list would include everything from a Panasonic AJ-D700 to a Sony F-950 or any camera or piece of equipment found on a professional rental list such as what http://www.lvrusa.com/RentalCatalog.cfm offers. That is not to ay a DVX100 would be my first choice for a TV program, it would not. But like my HGTV example the size of the camera makes for a nice camera I can throw up on high tripod and record a room as it's being made over with. For the rest of the stuff involving people I use a betacam.

By handing a DV camera to a producer, production companies cut thousands of dollars off their budgets. They still get pictures but often pictures that lack depth and often pictures that don't look as good as a better camera operated by a person who dedicates their profession to it might look. Does it mater for a program like American Chopper? yes and no. No because one might say the content doesn't need a $40k camera. Yes because with each program that goes the cheap route, we loose the quality that we used to obtain (I see it clearly) and we lesson everyones importance. What does that mean? A producer used to get paid $500 a day to produce. He worked with a dedicated camera crew that specialized in making pictures, and doing it well. Now he is given a camera and told to do that same thing for the same money. It's tough enough to produce a segment but to then also have to make good pictures pushes folks talent and often means something has to give, either in the producing end or the shooting end.

And the biggest effect? Overall everyone looses out in television. Whereas we used to produce a fantastic looking show that is well produced for say $25k and episode, now we only have $13k and episode and everyone in that chain of production from talent to the shows executive producer makes a lot less and works a lot more to make up for not having enough in the first place.

Many of you here might not understand it here on what is more a prosumer board but it's a cheapening of every aspect of a profession. In the end it means less people will be able to get work and those that do will not be paid what they are worth. For a producer like me, it is more of a challenge to maintain quality but the positive side for me is it means I have to work harder to prove everyone wrong which helps propagate the problem further because when I succeed it sets the bar lower by showing that it can be done. I am about to start up a second season of a program I produce for The Fine Living Channel. We shoot the program on Betacam. Overall our first season budget was almost half of what it should be. But all of use from production to edit worked out of love and made it look like a $30k show. It paid off as we created a program for half the money it should have cost and they raised the budget on the second season to a more livable cost. What we lost the first season leaves bit of bad taste as we worked so hard and didn't get much for the effort. But a second season helps clean up that taste. And this year I have more budget for new equipment like a jib and steadicam for the program. But it would be nice to have more folks on the roster but we simply can't hire more which means that cutting out the budget leaves us with less and that is bad for everyone, namely the 100 resumes a month I get for folks looking for work.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree here. I think a lot of people on this board come from a background of work that is different from broadcast work and may not see this perspective. As I am involved in the aspects of production on many different levels (my fulltime job is with CNN, I do event videography on the side from time to time, and I have worked on film projects), I kind of have the perspective of of a multitude of people on this board. Though in broadcasting, you may see the use of many 1/3" chip cameras (CNN still uses PD150's on shoots), there are usually reasons behind it (mainly for cost effectiveness or size of camera). But for the most part, everything is shot using 2/3" chip cameras because it is of overall higher quality. This will not change and there is a "standard" of quality that has been set by using these types of cameras.

When it coems to event work, I use my XL2. Excellent tool for th jobs ... but these jobs have different standards and different "quality" requirements, allowing the use of cameras such as these to be fully acceptable. Sure, stuff from these cameras can be "broadcast quality," but with the heavy use of 2/3" cameras in broadcast, why take the step down in quality if it isn't really necessary. Each type of market has had some sort of "standard" set when it comes to their tools. But that doesn't mean your abilities and skills are any different ... You know what you know and your skills and abilitiies are the same whether you are shooting with the DVX100a or the Sony F950. Its just about applying those skills properly and to the most effectiveness given the tools at hand.
 
:grin: You guys have jumped over the cliff!

The reference was to the JVC HD-100 being a pro-camera. Pro in the sense that it is, in fact, designed and layed out (ergonomically) in line with most professional cameras. It is not a point and shoot camera, a.k.a. handycam.

With all due respect, who cares about 1/3 or 2/3 or JVC or Sony. The reference is to the layout and operation of the camera only.
 
affordable equipment puts production capability into the hands of a lot more people which provides more diverse programming. in the long run that's a good thing. yeah, i know, it also means a lot more BAD programmng as well. but why should the power of media be only in the hands of rich guys and corporations?

it's almost like saying only people who can afford 50,000 dollar computers should be allowed to write novels.

walter, all your posts, though obviously informed, have the smell of bitter grapes. I don't understand where you are coming from, one minute you're bitching about newcommers poaching on your turf with cheap cameras and ipods the next minute you're providing valuable hard won information to these same fresh face poachers who will presumably bid you out of a job.
 
A small pebble can make big waves I guess. :)
I agree that the ergonomics of the JVC are more pro oriented. But that doesn't make the other cameras less for me.
Now back on topic: my choice stays the HVX for reasons explained in my posts above. Now its wait'n'see if it delivers...
 
brianluce said:
affordable equipment puts production capability into the hands of a lot more people which provides more diverse programming. in the long run that's a good thing. yeah, i know, it also means a lot more BAD programmng as well. but why should the power of media be only in the hands of rich guys and corporations?.
Click to expand...

I was going to bring this point up. The fact is the market is changing and you will see "PROsumer" cameras become the equipment of "PROs". It already is. Walter is right, the productions will become cheaper but this is where people make their mistakes. It's not about you. As a camera person you're somewhat expandable. That even includes me. Follow me on this one:

SD televisions only has so much resolution. Shooting with a high quality 2/3 Chip cam is great. Your problem is...(drumroll please) 90% of the populace are not videographers. Tell the average guy about what we talk about they'll simply start trying to use the 2nd hand knowledge to impress friends and seem smart. Basically the entertainment/news gathering field is about money. Money is made from providing entertainment that gets viewship so advertisers can will pay money to place ads on the show. Any skilled cameraman can do the job, and there are plenty. Some better than others. 1/2, 2/3 1/3 chip means nothing to the average person.

Now if a show cost $25,000 to shoot, and I can shoot it at broadcast quality for $15,000 business basic math says $15,000 it is. That's technology. I have an editing system in my bedroom cost about $2000 with everything. Years ago the only place I could see an editing system at school. It cost $25,000 for the unit. Premeire was out sure but it wasn't what it is today.

I could shoot a whole television show on the DVX100 at 24p (think Miami Vice or Law and Order) and if it was lit well your average person wouldn't know the difference. When I shot my first film (DVX100 30p) the aqusitions person didn't know it was video, it took people who really knew to say "that was shot on video." This is what we all need to remember and you will see more and more show (especially with reality shows be the rage now) use the three chip 1/3 cameras. Big distributors are opening "digital divisions" to aquire digital product which means films shot on the DVX, XL and others. The day people said would never come is coming and wishful thinking doesn't seem to be stopping it. Remember Kodak tried to tell people you couldn't capture emotions like film does with 24p video. (Yet many capture emotion on 60i soap operas everyday).

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
I was going to bring this point up. The fact is the market is changing and you will see "PROsumer" cameras become the equipment of "PROs". It already is. Walter is right, the productions will become cheaper but this is where people make their mistakes. It's not about you. As a camera person you're somewhat expandable. That even includes me. Follow me on this one:

SD televisions only has so much resolution. Shooting with a high quality 2/3 Chip cam is great. Your problem is...(drumroll please) 90% of the populace are not videographers. Tell the average guy about what we talk about they'll simply start trying to use the 2nd hand knowledge to impress friends and seem smart. Basically the entertainment/news gathering field is about money. Money is made from providing entertainment that gets viewship so advertisers can will pay money to place ads on the show. Any skilled cameraman can do the job, and there are plenty. Some better than others. 1/2, 2/3 1/3 chip means nothing to the average person.

Now if a show cost $25,000 to shoot, and I can shoot it at broadcast quality for $15,000 business basic math says $15,000 it is. That's technology. I have an editing system in my bedroom cost about $2000 with everything. Years ago the only place I could see an editing system at school. It cost $25,000 for the unit. Premeire was out sure but it wasn't what it is today.

I could shoot a whole television show on the DVX100 at 24p (think Miami Vice or Law and Order) and if it was lit well your average person wouldn't know the difference. When I shot my first film (DVX100 30p) the aqusitions person didn't know it was video, it took people who really knew to say "that was shot on video." This is what we all need to remember and you will see more and more show (especially with reality shows be the rage now) use the three chip 1/3 cameras. Big distributors are opening "digital divisions" to aquire digital product which means films shot on the DVX, XL and others. The day people said would never come is coming and wishful thinking doesn't seem to be stopping it. Remember Kodak tried to tell people you couldn't capture emotions like film does with 24p video. (Yet many capture emotion on 60i soap operas everyday).

-Nate
Click to expand...

Well put Nate.

With all this television being shot on 1/3" camcorders, how long before cinema follows?

Presently a film like 28 Days Later is the exception, but I think that could change... one day... these cameras are just getting so good!
 
1/3" CCD cams will never ever make a big dent in television or movies period endstop. There will be some penetration and sure, for a second or third cam in the field or mounted on a car...no argument. A 2/3" CCD camera like the Varicam is just far far far superior in every way outside of portability. I am currently working on 2 national shows that will launch early next year, one shooting with a Varicam and one with an XL2... same budget on both but one requires 100% field work and more travel.


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
1/3" CCD cams will never ever make a big dent in television or movies period endstop. There will be some penetration and sure, for a second or third cam in the field or mounted on a car...no argument. A 2/3" CCD camera like the Varicam is just far far far superior in every way outside of portability. I am currently working on 2 national shows that will launch early next year, one shooting with a Varicam and one with an XL2... same budget on both but one requires 100% field work and more travel.
Click to expand...


I agree with you Ash, I don't think they will take over from larger cameras, BUT they have already made a reasonable dent (or contribution might be a better word) in television shooting. A lot of shows, especially news, use 1/3" cameras.

I am wondering if cinema will follow. I don't expect to see Spiderman 7 shot on a HVX300, but I should think a lot of smaller, less effects driven films will not see the need in spending $100,000s on a camera if a $10,000 set up looks perfectly good.
 
I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood doesn't use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined.

-Nate
 
For us, comparing the cost of film vs Hd or SD is relevant.

...but...

I thought that film, as a format, was a very very small part of big productions cost...
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
I thought that film, as a format, was a very very small part of big productions cost...
Click to expand...
In terms of the average $60M to $80M cost of a Hollywood picture, the actual film costs are microscopic.
 
Nathyn said:
I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood does use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined.

-Nate
Click to expand...

Depending on what statistics you choose to believe, I agree with you - Hollywood is in trouble. However there problems have nothing to do with how much they spend on film processing, technology, or the costs of a camera. You could produce a movie for free and the twenty something MBA's who are grossly miss managing this industry would still screw it up. :thumbsup: Most of them wouldn't know a good script if they were clubbed to death with one. Oh, and a I think another good strategy to make their bottom line look good would be to raise ticket prices to $15 so they can talk about record box office reciepts. :angry:

I think that the best independent film makers can hope for is that this equipment keeps getting cheaper and better so that although they might not be able to compete at the box office they can compete on par with the look of a film but KICK the STUDIOS ASS with a compelling message. Something that an audience over the age of eight would like to pay to see. :huh:
 
"I believe you will see heavier movement toward these cams. Face it, Hollywood's in trouble. They're cutting budget's. A big studio could profit from cutting back. Shooting on something like the HVX or doing HD out from the XL-H1 could be cheaper than film. Maybe not for us but Hollywood does use end stock, the by rolls of films easily costing thousands more than renting a deck and buying this cam combined."

Only problem is that the camera budget for a Hollywood film is about 1-2% of the total budget. You will not see any cutting in that area because it doesn;t need to be cut.
 
If you are paying Tom Hanks $25,000,000 (I think it was actually about $85,000,000) for Saving Private Ryan by the time he got his points), why shoot him with a $6,000 camera?

One reason that is the case is if you WANT that type of look - eg, Blair Witch, 28 Days Later, Collateral (to a digital look extent).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top