Looks like there's no hope of PBS acquiring a video shot on an HPX370, according to this document:

http://www.pbs.org/producers/TOS-1-2010-Submission-to-PBS.pdf

Basic problem is that chip has to be at least 1/2 inch. Any thoughts to the contrary? Thanks.

Man that document is heady. What if you shoot a documentary and later PBS wants to show it? Lets say its in HD 720p. But was shot on a HPX200. Does that mean PBS simply WON'T show it?

By heady, I mean since I'm newer to the DP side of my films/projects, I have a-lot of learning to do.

The world is changing though and with the BBC in the UK now accepting the canon XF300/305 a 1/3" chip camera it looks like the codec is far more important than chip size.

That document is probably from research before the HPX300/370 and the canon cameras were released so is like the BBC one and out of date:http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/docs/hd_delivery.pdf

I have done numerous broadcast shoots on my HPX301 and used it and another as a B-cameras to the 2700 and the 3700, I have yet to find anyone who can spot which shots came from which camera in the edit and as it is all in AVC Intra 100 the workflow is seamless from all three camera's.

Most broadcasters have their base specifications but it doesn't totally dismiss every camera purely on chip size, its all down to budget and programme requirements.

Gary, your 3rd paragraph is quite an endorsement of the 370! If it's capable of footage that's indistinguishable from a $60K camera, it must be great value for the money.

Don't get me wrong the HPX301 isn't a replacement for the 2700 or 3700 but used under the right conditions it cuts in very well. I've also done indie features on the the 301 and it looks very nice on the big screen too.

It still has the limitations of cmos and small chip skew etc but I use mine for broadcast all the time or when budget isn't there for the 2700 or 3700, I am just very careful to know its limitations and make sure it has enough light and I don't do anything silly with it. At least when I hand over the footage I also know that the AVC Intra 100 codec isn't going to give any problems in post too.

I'm in the middle of one project and planning another. I'd use the 370 exclusively for the new one, but the current one has been shot so far with a Canon XL H1, HDV, 1080i. Would it be easy to keep the same "look" with footage from the two cameras?

Not sure as I don't know the canon XL camera at all, I had two HDV camera's last year the Z7 and S270 but the 301 is far better and cleaner looking than they were.

It may be that if you shoot with the 370 set to 1080 AVC intra 50 that it will be more compatible with HDV, best do some tests first and another option would be to shoot full def on the 370 but I suspect you will be downgrading it to match the HDV footage.

I don't know about PBS, but Discovery HD recently aired a documentary called "Finding Amelia." A lot of the footage was from an HPX370.

The BBC did accept the XF300/305, but they did NOT accept the HPX300. I don't know about the 370. I've heard Discovery HD also accepts the XF300, but I haven't had anyone confirm this.

It's more than just the codec, or the HPX200 would have been accepted years ago. Supposedly the Canons make incredible images, 1/3" or not.

AFAIK the BBC have approved the XF305 basically for self-shooting work, as a modern high-def equivalent to the Z1 if you like. (The latter was only ever approved by them for standard definition - not in HDV mode.) That's not the same as a blanket approval, and I believe it's been approved on it's own merits - not that it's likely to herald any general acceptance of 1/3" (Though it may not be the last 1/3" camera.)

It's also worth noting that the guidelines will allow a certain amount of non-HD material in an HD programme if it's use is editorially justified - and non-approved cameras can fit into this bracket. An obvious example would be to allow use of archive, or other "special interest" footage. That's very different to such as interviews shot specifically for the programme, when non-approved cameras wouldn't be allowed.

The problem with the 300 series cameras is that they are inherently noisy. And HD broadcast transmission coders don't like noise. The pictures from them may look fine in the edit - but not stand up as well in the chain. That's especially true if any gain was to be used.

The 370 tried to get over the problem of the 300 by using quite aggressive electronic noise reduction, both within the frame, and also over several frames. It worked OK a lot of the time - but gave a fairly unpleasant effect sometimes on moving objects which seemed to be followed by a trail of noise. It may not have been too bad in itself much of the time, but severely compromised any attempts at post work. The worst example that was shown to me involved a chroma keying example, and whilst the effect wasn't too bad on the original footage, the end result was awful.

AFAIK the BBC have approved the XF305 basically for self-shooting work, as a modern high-def equivalent to the Z1 if you like. (The latter was only ever approved by them for standard definition - not in HDV mode.) That's not the same as a blanket approval, and I believe it's been approved on it's own merits - not that it's likely to herald any general acceptance of 1/3" (Though it may not be the last 1/3" camera.)

Agree on the general acceptance of 1/3" cameras.
The BBC approved the XF300/305 for full acquisition for independent productions, along with the RED and the Sony PDW 700 & 800. That's pretty good company. The BBC DV Solutions Unit recently bought 50 XF305s, maybe for the self-shooting work. They will replace the Z1s.

As far as future broadcast quality 1/3" cameras, will they continue to improve, or is this the last of the line? Is the XF305 as good as it will get? Can anyone forsee a follow-up to the Canon XF and Panny HPX370 cameras, or will the manufacturers abandon 1/3" chips and pursue large sensor cameras, ala the AF100?

And what does this have to do with the 370 and PBS? I dunno, this thread has derailed a bit.

So the only important thing is to convert your HPX-370 program to the Sony codec, submit it and make sure you have a friend with the appropriate Sony camera in case PBS asks you what you shot it with. :-)
Ed

As far as future broadcast quality 1/3" cameras, will they continue to improve, or is this the last of the line? Is the XF305 as good as it will get?
The question might be "what's the point?"

In the past the real reasoning behind 1/3" cameras has been size/weight/price. If those criteria can be met with larger chips, less stressful on the underlying physics, then what's the point of 1/3"?

That really is the triumph of the EX, isn't it? It got 1/2" chips into a size/weight package normally associated with 1/3", at a comparable price point. Why therefore give your engineers a hard job, when they could just use 1/2" (or bigger) chips?

The question might be "what's the point?"

In the past the real reasoning behind 1/3" cameras has been size/weight/price. If those criteria can be met with larger chips, less stressful on the underlying physics, then what's the point of 1/3"?

That really is the triumph of the EX, isn't it? It got 1/2" chips into a size/weight package normally associated with 1/3", at a comparable price point. Why therefore give your engineers a hard job, when they could just use 1/2" (or bigger) chips?

Good question. Panasonic has stated they will not use 1/2" chips. Canon went with 1/3" chips because of the better zoom range on the XF300. There'll still be a need for 1/3" cameras for the lower budget range.

The problem with small sensors is that you run up against diffraction effects. For 1920x1080 HD cameras this means that your smallest useable aperture is around f5.6. At F8 you will see softening of the image. This is down to the way light behaves when passing past a sharp edge (the iris) and the laws of physics. It doesn't matter how good the sensor is. Add to that the difficulty of making high quality fast zoom lenses and you end up with a camera that is typically only useable between f5.6 and f2.8, that's just a 3 stop range. At a push by going to f8 or if your lens is very fast you might gain another stop, but as most lower cost lenses are not constant aperture and often a little soft when fully open it's a pretty narrow range to have to work within. ND filters can mitigate this to some extent, but constantly switching filters is tiresome and many camera operators (PA's, runners, you name it) using handycams have no idea of the importance of staying within the exposure sweet spot. In many cases they just switch the camera to auto. As HD becomes more and more prevalent in news and current affairs and viewers become used to seeing high quality full HD in their homes this is an issue that will get noticed more and more. I think going forward what we are likely to see is improvements in single sensor technology. If you can eliminate the prism cameras will be smaller and lighter, lenses will cost less to make. Even a 1/2" sensor could be put into a very small camera. You only have to look at the size of the NEX-VG10 with it's 35mm sized sensor to see what's possible.

Ed: there was a production company based in the UK that were commissioned to make a broadcast TV show. They were given the required minimum tech specs at the start of the project but cheated using an inferior codec on location and then bumping it up to a better codec in post. They got caught, and were sued for a very substantial sum of money for breach of contract. Engineers can tell the difference between codecs, each one has it's own tell tale signature such as macro block size, motion vectors or sampling. In addition there is the metadata and file headers that should accompany the rushes and this normally includes the camera and codec type. Think very carefully before trying to pass off sub standard footage as something else, it is fraud after all and it could come back and bite you.

Further to what Alister says, there is a way of improving lens performance with small chips which has something to do with making the ray paths parallel at a certain point in the lens. The effect is that the actual physical aperture sixe becomes larger than it would be in a conventional lens for a given f stop, hence reducing the diffraction effect.

But (strangely enough) the drawback is complexity, and hence cost etc. I believe Canon use the trick in the XF305 (which may be a reason why such as the BBC will accept it, but no other 1/3" camera) - but the XF305 is over £1,000 dearer than the EX1. As I said before - why give your engineers a hard job, when they could just use 1/2" (or bigger) chips?

If 1/2" meant a large shoulder mount form factor, I can see why it may be worth persevering with improving 1/3" designs. As it is (the proof being the EX), what's the point? Why not make your life easier and go for a 1/2" design?

David, the answer to you last question is "cost". If I had the money, I'd buy something 5x as expensive with a shoulder-mount form factor. Or rent, though the nearest rental house is at least 5 hours' drive away.

Still, I've been finding information that seems to indicate a 370 would not leave my production DOA at PBS. Check out this thread and article:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/476341-hvx-hpx-go-national-pbs.html

Users Reports | Broadcast and Professional AV (http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/04reports/cvm/index.html)

The above look pretty encouraging to me. Are they wrong or misleading in some way?

Two sides to the answer, Philip.

My previous post was more referring to it from a designers perspective in the future, not such as yourself. If it was going to cost (say) $6,000 and $7,000 respectively to engineer a given standard of camera for 1/2" and 1/3", then why bother with 1/3"? And that seems a bit the case with the XF305 - they've engineered their way out of some of the 1/3" pitfalls, but ended up with a more expensive camera than the EX. Why not just go for 1/2" and keep things simple?

In terms of cost, I'm also looking at a new camera around the HPX371 price point, and have come to the conclusion that the Sony PMW320 is better overall. The only exception seems to be codec - but it's possible to use an external recorder like a nanoFlash and get a "fully approved" package. You can't add an external chipset to the 371!

As far as your own situation goes, the only people who can definitively answer it are the intended client. You need to ask them, and for the reasons Alister gives I wouldn't try to just do the filming and hope for the best. They may give dispensation to use the 371, insist you use something else, or approve conditional use (such as it may only be used at 0dB). They may also only be prepared to pay a lower rate. (If you'd employed a builder, agreed a rate, then found he was using lower quality materials than specified in the original contract, ask yourself how you'd feel.)

I should explain that the video would be offered to them after it's completed, and would be appropriate for a show like Independent Lens. It's not destined for anything like Nova, Masterpiece, or Great Performances.

The only tech info for IL says that cameras need to adhere to the same specs as any other PBS show -- 3-sensors, 1/2 inch or more -- but I bet some have been done with lower-cost equipment.

The company should still be able to offer guidance. Be very careful about going by what previous productions have used. The point about "approved camera" lists is that anyone can go ahead and use one in the list and not worry about it. They don't mean other cameras will NEVER be allowed, but could mean it will be on a case by case basis. So camera A may get approval for one programme (if it filled a special need), but not for another programme.

I wouldn't risk just going ahead and hoping for the best. If they say "no" to the 371, better to have to spend a bit more money and get it shown, than risk having it turned down after you've put a lot of time and money in.

For my needs, it must be shoulder-mount. Which takes me to the PMW-320 if I want the most affordable PBS-safe camera.. I don't think there's much else in that price range.

I guess the 1/3" could be foolproof focus wise for the PAs and researchers who can be the person doing the shooting.

Brian you must mean secretaries/media students that are doing the shooting? as that is what I have found!

It doesn't surprise me.

Gary, sorry I'm not savvy enough to understand your comment about secretaries and media students. Could you explain?

Rather than hiring a camera person they use researchers, secretaries and media students (I assume on work experience) to shoot material on some television programmes.

Yes as Brian says, why pay a huge amount for a cameraperson when you can get anyone to hand in the office to operate it these days.

I was in the local ITV network station before christmas and the journalist (media student) was very proud that she had her one day camera training course and was raring to get out with her lovely new Z5

Gary: ...the journalist (media student) was very proud that she had her one day camera training course and was raring to get out with her lovely new Z5

Don't some old geriatricts just hate the excited ambition of youth :)

I'm sure she'll do a great job with her Z5.

So how did you make the transition from the Sound Department to Video Camera Gary? Bet you just went out and did it, probably without the benefit of a training course.

Come on, give "students" and those trying to learn a craft, trade, call it what you will a break as your first client did for you :)

The main question might be is she replacing a trained video journalist in the production of the regional news or is she involved on a project as part of her training time at the company? By a project I would mean a one or two news items that may or may not be transmitted as part of the student getting experience in the work environment.

If they are replacing someone's job, it's an opportunity for no one, because there is no prospect for future employment. Trainees should always be supernumerary to the normal staffing levels. I'm saying this having allowed trainees (having been trainee on a couple of feature films) to work the grade on well funded shorts - part of the funding brief being training.

My apologies to Philip the OP and others for jumping in as it appears this has taken the thread a little off topic.

Brian I bet you've still got your old ACTT union card?

My main point was I didn't find Gary's passive-aggressive post about young people with Z5s who he defined as secretaries and media students contributed anything to this thread. And it appears I'm not the only one either.

And by the way, the last secretary I know of old ended up the MD (CEO) of a very very large multinational TV Network. So who knows will emerge from an opportunity, perhaps the female media student with her lovely shiney Z5.

I'm done.

:)

Don't some old geriatricts just hate the excited ambition of youth :)

I'm sure she'll do a great job with her Z5.

So how did you make the transition from the Sound Department to Video Camera Gary? Bet you just went out and did it, probably without the benefit of a training course.

Come on, give "students" and those trying to learn a craft, trade, call it what you will a break as your first client did for you :)

Ha ha yes fine then all you 44,000 media students can work for minimum wage and let ITV make all their staff redundant, no doubt in time like most of them they will get sick of working for nothing and go and do something else.

This same journalist (media student) was also complaining that she got paid nothing and even worse old git's like me had no time to teach them how to do it properly! Sorry I work for me now not as ITV's training dept!

Yes I was young once and great people taught me to do it right and allowed me to progress but I didn't then crap on them to further my own career. Even more important is that the Z5 is being chosen by people (secretaries) who no longer have the technical expertise to assess camera's for broadcast, it is all being done to be as cheap as possible and not to help media students or anyone else who wishes to really further their career.

Oh and besides I have done photography and camerawork as a hobby for longer than the sound work but as I still enjoy it after 30 years I do it and learn something new everyday.

Rant over and I'll get me coat!

Brian I bet you've still got your old ACTT union card?


It's BECTU now and it took several years to get the thing and I had been trained by the BBC. Baring in mind that the industry was a closed shop, without one, your job opportunities were limited. So, I'm not one of the ITV ACTT old guard. I now regard the union card as insurance against non paying clients.

Unfortunately, there have numerous cases of people working for nothing on commissioned productions instead of producers employing people. Then these hopeful people being replaced by new people willing to do the same.

Secretaries are not to be underestimated and the job is often a way into the the system. However, that's very different to them being fully trained in the various craft skills (rather than a one day how to point a camera). I know many people who started out as secretaries and have worked their way up to be excellent producers, directors and other production careers.

The UK broadcasters used to allow staff to get training and attachments in various departments, so it was possible to change your career path (although not that easy in the more competitive areas). People don't always have straight career paths, but it's also unfair to use work experience students to replace either freelance or staff people.

Brian (and Gary) I'd be pleased to follow up on this discussion in the Open Discussion forum, but I don't think this is the correct thread to be doing so now, with apologies to Philip the OP.

:)

you end up with a camera that is typically only useable between f5.6 and f2.8, that's just a 3 stop range.

Spot on Alister, but I think a lot of people that might be scared by that would find that they could actually live with it when they realise that they have a 2 stop and 4 stop ND built into most cameras and also at least 1 stop of gain that'll be useable. This then gives you about 8 stops which I for one could live with if the other benefits (cost, size) were there.
BUT, of course, not saying that it's ideal or as good as a 2/3" sensor, just that the problem may not be as bad as it first seems.

As for the people being sued, it's well worth mentioning. I think a lot of people are beguiled by what their pictures look like on screen and that they don't think that problems won't crop up during edit and broadcast is just scary.

Steve

I agree and to get this thread back on track the HPX300/301 or 370/371 in the hands of someone who knows its 1/3" limitations is a superb camera for certain broadcast work.

The testing for the BBC is now done externally and there was nothing in the report that should have prevented it from being on the approved list.

The problem is being highlighted here though that there is a new generation of operatives who may not have the experience or knowledge to use it within its limitations.

The problem is that the new technology is hugely available and certain people are now going off and shooting on all sorts of low end camera's just to save production money and the mainstream broadcasters now have to be even more strict when approving certain camera's.

From my own perspective I only went from sound to camera when the technology has become lower priced but even though I have 30 years of 35mm and large format stills experience I have been through the V1, Z7 and S270 HDV stages and now have standardised on P2 as my main format with the HPX301 as my main camera for most production unless otherwise specified.

That said I now find myself having to compete with new media people who are non technical but who now demand a DSLR or a RED camera for lo/no paid jobs.

Being ex broadcast I respect lots of peoples needs and have now linked with a good friend to add a RED ONE M-X to my choice of kit as I have trusted my ex BBC tech guru and have not gone the DSLR route just for the fashion of it.

SO the HPX300/301 370/371 is a great camera and with broadcasters having less money fro production I would rather new users be allowed to use it under certain conditions with approval as the AVC intra codec is superb.

You'd be surprised how many people don't know that the optical quality begins to deteriorate after f5.6.

Have to agree with Steve that on a practical level the lens on the HPX301 with ND filters gives around 8 stops.

I tend to work as wide as possible anyway so whilst it doesn't have the depth of the HPX3700 for most jobs it is fine as the codec is the same on all the P2 cameras I use.

A little update; the BBC has now approved the XF300/305 for all productions, internal and independent. Cheeky little buggers.

BBC Approves Canon XF305 & XF300 for HD Production | PhotographyBLOG (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/bbc_approves_canon_xf305_xf300_for_hd_production/)

Still no word on the HPX370. And definitely no love for my HPX500, 2/3" chips or not.
Anybody have any internal info regarding the 370? Have they even been tested?

My personal take on PBS' camera acceptance:
It may have been true in the recent past that 1/3" cams weren't acceptable for HD broadcast. But those were the days of low-res CCDs and HDV. Canon has proven that modern, full-rez 1/3" cams with a strong codec are good enough for broadcast. I can't see why the 370 couldn't be also.
And how will PBS respond to the new large sensor cameras, like the AF100? They only have one CMOS chip. Doesn't PBS require three? Methinks every camera should be tested on its own merits, not because they didn't follow a basic guideline.

Still no word on the HPX370. And definitely no love for my HPX500, 2/3" chips or not.
Anybody have any internal info regarding the 370? Have they even been tested?

The list of tested cameras is at BBC R&D White Paper WHP034 - Alan Roberts (http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/) - so a 301 was tested quite soon after it came out. The fact it hasn't been approved up until now seems to indicate it never will be.

From what I gather, the Canon approval is seen as a one off and not likely to lead to any mass approval of 1/3" cameras. It should be seen more as a tribute to Canon and the way they've engineered out some of the optical issues through lens design (together with putting an approved codec onto Cf cards). I have heard some stories that it's unlikely they will be able to do the same optical tricks on an interchangeable lens camera.

It does seem to be mainly optical issues that are relevant here, the document for the XF305 on the list above says:
......there was no perceptible loss of resolution through iris diffraction until the lens was stopped down to F/8, at which point significant resolution was being lost. Again, this is unusual for such a small image size.

Thanks for the BBC link, David.
What's surprising from the tests is how well the XF305 and EX1/3 cameras performed next to the high-end cameras. Specifically, the resolution tests, with the circular rings. The images from these small cameras looked a lot better than even the Varicams. I know they're native 720 cams, but still. Yeah, there's a lot more to a camera's image than resolution, but it's a good place to start.
I can also see how my HPX500 failed the BBC tests. Image wasn't too sharp. The HVX200 was way worse.

Alistair, I've never heard of independent UK productions companies being sued for breach of contract for delivering masters that fail a tech review. I joined a company as head of post and until then they had many failed tech reviews, which resulted in either 'fines' (i.e. penalities that would affect the budget) or were simply told to put them right and/or reshoot the offending scenes. If this is true I imagine they more likely deliberately set out to defraud the BBC over equipment/crew costs. I also don't agree that the BBC techies can spot every type of codec error - they can't even tell finished DVcam bumped up to DigiBeta, but then very few can. The process usually invloves putting the master through a waveform analysis for illegal levels and at the same time a subjective picture quality analysis graded in 5 levels. I've seen some shocking things get through (not on my watch I'll have you know though)

The thing about broadcast recommendations is that they are aimed to catch those that are perhaps new or unused to regular professional delivery and also MPEG2 and now MPG4 transmission has serious issues with certain codecs, particularly at the severely compromised standards and bandwidth they've chosen (this is why Super 16mm is not accepted as HD, it is the random grain structure rather than resolution that is the problem for encoding). They don't care about the chip size per se (they certainly don't care about DOF), more that they know cameras in the 1/3" category are more likely to deliver shocking footage in the wrong hands. I seriously doubt that productions shot on the 300/370 and other shoulder mount cameras of this type by a professional cameraman, edited and post produced to the highest standards and delivered on a HDCam SR master would be rejected for broadcast, regardless of what their guidelines say. I know this to be true because it happens all the time.

The Canon XFs may be approved but it is unlikely anyone who is serious about high end picture standards, say on a Arts, History or Natural History prestige documentary with a proper budget would likely elect to use one, however good they are. I can imagine using the Panny 300/370 on these projects though more because of form factors. But the fact remains with budget you go with the best you can and that is usually standard 2/3" broadcast. Do not worry about the camera, worry about the subject and the final quality of the finished master. If you get commissioned they will give you the budget for this. If they buy your programme they have already decided to broadcast it and/or will help you to correct any defects.

Claire I have cut many many hours of reality type programming for broadcast and for my sins and I can say beyond doubt that I have yet to come across a technically good DV director (i.e. AP with camera) regardless of gender. It is because of cost only and they are doing good camera-people out of a job and short changing the public. It is not really their fault it is the comissioners and producers who don't care. These young people whose only qualification seems to have to be an Oxbridge degree (particularly at the BBC) don't get enough training. I know because it was part of my job to whip them into shape and it was a hopeless task given the time.

I'd like to say one final thing about Alan Roberts testing of cameras at the BBC. He is a brilliant engineer who probably tests new cameras more thoroughly than anyone I know of, using proper scientific methodolgy. But his tests are severe and he his not (I believe) an artist or cameraman. I would take issue with some of his filmlike settings because these are more subjective (and derived from a waveform attempt to emulate film which never works with video) and are best achieved by creative DPs and camerapeople. To take for one example, he rejected out of hand the Canon DSLR (5DMkII I believe), quite rightly in my view for serious artifacts and moire. However the BBC have comissioned at least 1 high profile drama, 'Coronation Street' (a biopic not the soap opera) where they approved the use of this camera and it was broadcast quite happily. And I have heard of it's use in quite a few other programmes too. As an aside the BBC have always felt that film should be telecined at a 1:1 gamma and this is simply wrong in my view because most every movie they show and most of the Amercican 35mm episodic shows they have shown follow the standard 1:33 (IIRC) gamma which makes them look nice and punchy. Witness the apalling quality of BBC 70's and 80's shows where 16mm was used for exteriors and videotape for interiors to see what I mean. This practice has continued into their use of digital for film replacement. The 1st series of the new Doctor Who (DigiBeta with HD lenses) looked very good I thought precisely because it was shot by a BSC DP not a BBC trained drama cameraman.

So back to topic, they are looking for 1st, good progammes and content that should and must be made to the best of professional standards, they are not pixel watchers. A good Online editor (and dubbing mixer) who is used to delivering HDCam SR masters for broadcast will and should catch any defects before you deliver too.

In the recent posts here, Gary comes closest to the points I'm trying to focus on. Just to try to clarify:

1. Currently have an XL H1, and will need a shoulder mounted camera for upcoming projects.
2. Limited amount of money to invest in upgrading. The current price of a 370 is close to the limit.
3. Unfavorable comparison to a 2/3" camera is like concluding that a Honda Civic doesn't give as enjoyable a driving experience as a BMW 3 series
4. The issues of lawsuit/breach are moot, because I'd only be able to offer the finished product, and they could judge it on its merits. There's no contract.
5. I think the odds are so unfavorable with PBS, regardless of merit, that investing a huge amount with that one aim would be like betting your savings on lottery tickets.

If I get a contract that gives me $1,500 a day for the next 12 months then I will be off to buy a 3700 or even a 3100 like a shot.

My local broadcaster is still on SD and pays less than $500 a day so they get a 301 as that is the level of camera that warrants their daily rate, even if they were on HD they would still get the same camera as investing in high end kit has to warrant high end rates these days. Interesting that they are training the journalists (secretaries) to use Z5's so that is the benchmark for their needs.

I have done lots of broadcast with the 3700 and the 301's as b-camera's, I have also done full shooting in HD with the 301 but if that is all they can afford then that is what they get, besides there are lots of instances where the EX ser camera's have been used and with the BBC acceptance of the new canon camera's the argument against 1/3" chips used properly in the right hands is a very weak one.

Hi Gary

Just out of interest.. you say a 3700 or even a 3100.. why "or even a 3100"

Nothing confrontational sir.. just wondered why the "or even "

Thanks

Hi I really like the 3100 and it is the latest camera but as most of my work is drama and features if I got a really good contract I would have to consider the 3700 as I may need varicam operation.

I currently rent my 3700's and get a really good deal on them but I wonder if they will add varicam to the 3100 in time, or maybe we will see more at NAB?

Ok thanks.. so you need the 50p/60p for slow mo.. or ramping in shot?

Yes 50fps for slow-mo although I could always use the HPX301 for that if needed, I really like the 3100 and it may be my next camera if they don't do a 601 ;0)

What is a 601 :) ?

Shhh I've been speculating on the 601 for nearly two years now, it is a sub £20k inc lens replacement for the HPX500 with 2/3" chips and AVC Intra 100 with vari-speed but it only exists in my own mind!

Basically a 2/3" chipped HPX300/301 but I can always dream as the 3100 seems to be their answer to the sony 320/350 and 500!

Yeah the 3100 looks very good value.. except for 50p/60p.. it has everything.. Ive used the 3700 also.. nice camera ofcourse.. but big.. and a real battery eater.. I will never need 5 card slots either..
Hope they will be quick to come out with thunderbolt port card reader..!

Hi I really like the 3100 and it is the latest camera but as most of my work is drama and features if I got a really good contract I would have to consider the 3700 as I may need varicam operation.
It wouldn't be a good option Gary, as whilst the 3700 does do varicam it's subject to a maximum frame rate of only 30fps. It'll do fast motion - but not really slo-mo.

Both the 3100 and the 3700 have full 1920x1080 imagers, and give a 1080 output - but no 720 downconversion.

This is a very big reason why a lot of people are turning to the PMW500. It has 1920x1080 chips, will give a true 1080 output at normal speed, but crucially also has a 720p downconverted mode which will allow full slo-mo at 720p.

It you want a Panasonic camera to do slo-mo you have to use the 2700 in 720p mode - but that only has 1280x720 chips, so the 1080 output is an upconvert.