Hi!

In this day and age I find my self slowly stepping in to the world of documentary films. I am totally baffled by the amount of cameras and camera rigs that one can put together in order to shot a documentary type film. So in this regard I'm asking you all to give me some help in putting together a rig for filming documentaries. I'm starting of with lower budget films so I wouldn't go higher than app. 20k for a camera system/rig. Films would generally be made for television broadcast in HD. Some would maybe also go to film festivals and others to the web.

I should say that currently I have an HPX171 and some P2 cards. So I first started looking at the HPX371. But I'm really not that sure that the small sensor and it's image is what I (and the world for that matter) want at the moment.

What kind of rigs do you have? What would you suggest? F3 rig, pmw350/320, hpx371, af101, fs100, etc?? To many options! All I know is that I would like a camera that does at least 800 tv lines of resolution. I wanted to buy the AF101 but ended up not doing so because of the low rez (and the highlights...). I would like to go for the HP3100 but just can't justify it's price at this moment...

What do you say?

Help!?:)

What is your shooting style? Or rather , what do you anticipate will be the scenario you shoot in most often?

Run and gun nature documentaries? Do you need really long telephoto capabilities? Something that will fit in an underwater housing? Time lapse capabilities?

ENG (Electronic News Gathering) Type of situations? Mostly shoulder/hand held. Verite stuff? Need a zoom lens? One man operation, no assistant with boompole and sound?

Talking head heavy? Time to sit down, arrange a nice interview situation. Perhaps light it and compose the set. Time to change lenses during the interview. More of a 'narrative' style. Someone with you to assist with downloading cards, pulling focus, conducting the interviews...

Low light capabilities? Deep focus or shallow? What is your primary NEED in this area?

Will you work off sticks, or mostly hand held?

Are you comfortable with a particular workflow - or edit system? Do you have to match your shots to someone else's camera system? Will you be shooting multi cam live events?

These sorts of things go into choosing which camera will help you in meeting your goals.

In addition to everything that Rick said, keep in mind that you'll need to edit and finish this footage.

Certain formats just lend themselves to the workflow of film making better than others. P2, XDCam and tape (yes, TAPE) all have a lot of benefits. AVCCam and other .h264 based cameras can be a pain to work with.

Don't forget to properly archive your tapeless material. Make sure you name & label things clearly.

Remember, the gear does not tell the story, you do. The gear is only the toolset that gets you there. Of course, better tools will make your work easier, but it's still up to you to put those tools to better use!

Hi guys! Yes I should have been a bit more clear of my intended field of use... I would like an all around camera rig.

- don't plan on shooting under water:) if I do I'll rent a rig

- shooting stiles should vary from cinema verite to eng but I think that I would live without a motorized zoom... Shoulder or sticks. 60/40 probably. If the camera wouldn't be an ENG type I would definitely want to construct a shoulder rig.

- don't care about post work flow. We will adapt with whatever I go with. We edit with avid so I'm thinking of getting the sound devices PIX240 so we could record directly to DNXhd. My avdio producer would probably welcome this decision to. I doubt that we will be using an on-board codec of what ever camera I get. Exception would be the HPX371.

- As for DOF characteristics I am not convinced in small sensor cameras all that any more. I believe that the world is aiming for big chips at the moment as far as it goes for the aesthetics. I don't know. What do you think?

- filming crew will mostly be consisted of 4 people. Yes I will have an audio producer among them:) with a bum that is and probably a lot more...:)

- documentary formats should vary but I doubt I will be doing a lot of run and gun ENG/news type of films.

I am torn in between a more lazy approach (HPX371, or PMW350/320:) or a more cinema oriented rig ( let's say an F3 with a shoulder rig). Not sure about 1/3 chips either. I understand the world is in a small dof cinematic video craze. And that is why I'm considering to compound a big rig (monitor, EVF, FF, matte box, external recorder, etc.). I will try to get as much cinema oriented as possible in due time. Aiming at film festivals and such - but will start with television and internet. I would use this rig for my other work to which is mostly corporate.

Hope this gives you a basic idea of what I'm after. As I said before I would be most happy with an HPX3100 but can't justify the cost... The F3 is tempting but I would be absolutely most happy if Panasonic would release an update to the outdated HPX500 and give some competition to the Sony's 350.

I am interested in what other people are using as documentary rigs. Oh and I am not interested in DSLR rigs. Not as an A camera anyway...

What about a Canon XF300 or 305? You won't need an external recorder as you can use the Canon MXF files nativley in Avid. It is 1/3", but it does take lovely pictures.

Using an F3 hand held or on the shoulder is going to be a bit of an ordeal.

The reason I asked so many questions, is that I am perched on the razor's edge of making a decision. And I edit with Avid as well.

My top two choices right now, are the Canon XF300 (Don't need the 305) and I'm seriously considering the The Panasonic AGA F100.

My personal needs are more ENG and run and gun doc work - and I rarely have the luxury of anything like a full crew - so maybe I get a sound man on occasion. The zoom is essential to me - that puts the xf300 high on the list. I love canon optics.

I really appreciate the larger sensor, depth of field quality of the AGA F100 - but the form factor, work flow and the (Current) lack of a good cheap zoom are an issue.

I finally decided against the EX3 though that was a strong contender.

And I haven't COMPLETELY ruled out going with an XLH1s and putting a nanoflash on it. Here's why THAT appeals to me. Sure, it's a 1/3 sensor - but so is the XF300. It's not a CMOS sensor - so I'm not dealing with the jello and flash issues - however small they might be. I love the form factor - and the interchangeable lens capability. And finally - I LIKE having the option for tape back up. The XLH1s is a bit long in the tooth at this point. So I'd likely be buying a used rig - and dealing with those issues.

I'm probably a 50/50 guy when it comes to stix and shoulder. But I do LOVE a shoulder mount - the coffeecam form drives me crazy. (But I got into broadcasting when it was 'film at eleven')

Tapping my toes, waiting for the Camera that Canon won't bring out. Still sitting on the fence, and waiting for the big bid on a project to come through. Why wait? Because I don't need it NOW - and the longer I wait, the more likely the 'next best thing' will come out and/OR the older things will get cheaper.

That's my logic - your mileage may vary.

All I will add is don't dismiss small sensor's for documentary work, they can actually be an advantage as you are not in any trouble with focus a lot of the time. I have to laugh when people in broadcast insist on 2/3" chips all the time and then slap a wide angle on the front end as their std lens, even a lot of broadcast stedicam work ends up being a bit of a joke with a huge wide angle on the front.

As you may know i love my HPX301/371 camera and it was bought to do most things which it does very well, it has the audio flexibility I need and an easy to grab and shoot package that has about the best shooting codec available, Ok I would too love a 3100/3700 but I hire it in if the budget is there for it, otherwise the 301 does 90% of what I need to do and is now fully BBC approved out of the box.

There is too much hot air about shallow DOF and most broadcast productions do not require or need such shooting techniques, even drama that I have done has been fine on the HPX301 and we have been able to get the shots we need with a little planning. Style over substance tends to be the flavour these days but for most broadcast work shallow DOF is not required and it is better to have a working package that is reliable and does the job in hand without too much stress or hastle.

Add to that the on-board codecs on the HPX301/370 cover just about every single format you will ever need from DV thru to AVC Intra 100 at 1920x1080 10 bit 4.2.2 if you already have P2 then that or the new HPX251 must be high on your list.

And I haven't COMPLETELY ruled out going with an XLH1s and putting a nanoflash on it. Here's why THAT appeals to me. Sure, it's a 1/3 sensor - but so is the XF300. It's not a CMOS sensor - so I'm not dealing with the jello and flash issues - however small they might be. I love the form factor - and the interchangeable lens capability. And finally - I LIKE having the option for tape back up. The XLH1s is a bit long in the tooth at this point. So I'd likely be buying a used rig - and dealing with those issues.


I have an XLH1 with a nanoflash, a PAG light, 20x lens & 6x wide lens as my standard setup for ENG and run-n-gun work. Its a good combo, and the nanoflash is a solid partner for that camera. I record to tape and the nanoflash both, though I find I just archive the tapes straight away (nice to know they are there though).

What about a Canon XF300 or 305? You won't need an external recorder as you can use the Canon MXF files nativley in Avid. It is 1/3", but it does take lovely pictures.

Using an F3 hand held or on the shoulder is going to be a bit of an ordeal.

I am already invested in P2 media. So if anything I would go for the HPX250 when it comes out. Yes I agree with you about an F3 rig. But with that I could shoot very cinema oriented. It would be useful for music videos and short film (narrative).


The reason I asked so many questions, is that I am perched on the razor's edge of making a decision. And I edit with Avid as well...
...My top two choices right now, are the Canon XF300 (Don't need the 305) and I'm seriously considering the The Panasonic AGA F100.


The form factor of AF101 is a good thing if you ask me. It's a very small camera if you want it to be and if not just build yourself a shoulder rig. That's my logic at least... All handy cam style cameras are obnoxious to use without support.
I see the HPX250 as a strong competitor to the XF300. If I was choosing between the two I would go for the HPX (better codec + P2).

All I will add is don't dismiss small sensor's for documentary work, they can actually be an advantage as you are not in any trouble with focus a lot of the time...
...Add to that the on-board codecs on the HPX301/370 cover just about every single format you will ever need from DV thru to AVC Intra 100 at 1920x1080 10 bit 4.2.2 if you already have P2 then that or the new HPX251 must be high on your list.

The HPX371 is on the top of my list. I would already have bought one if not for the small sensor. I love P2 and would really like to keep using it. Wish Panasonic would make a new 371 with 2/3 chips!:)

1/3 chips have there advantages sure but 2/3 is the way to go for documentary work if you ask me. And bigger chips for more cinematic types of docus all though one can make awesome films with 2/3 too.

But the key thing with 1/3" chips is to keep the aperture as wide open as possible, that way to get close to 2/3" DOF and also avoid chromatic problems with the lens, in over 30 years of working on doco's I have never heard a director request shallow DOF that only tends to apply to drama shooting as besides most of the work I have done in the past has been 16mm so i is pretty close to 1/3" anyway.

Shallow DOF is only a recent style as DSLR's have come on the market allowing people to minic 35mm but it is rare that I work on projects that demand it for their shooting needs and I certainly have not shot a doco that demands it as a style for TV.

It also boils down to cost at the end of the day but the 301/371 is the only sub £10k self contained camera out there that can shoot doco's to broadcast BBC spec and more importantly can sit on your shoulder with a form factor that suits that type of shooting all day long, yes a 2/3" camera would be my choice too but you have that in the HPX3100 albeit at a lot more cost!

I have an XLH1 with a nanoflash, a PAG light, 20x lens & 6x wide lens as my standard setup for ENG and run-n-gun work. Its a good combo, and the nanoflash is a solid partner for that camera. I record to tape and the nanoflash both, though I find I just archive the tapes straight away (nice to know they are there though).

Simon - I'm not ruling that combo out. It's a matter of finding a unit I can trust (used) for a reasonable price point. I figure if I pick one up for 3k - then another 3k for the nanoflash plus some money on the high end cards (I don't skimp on media). We're up to $7000 for the package. That's what I would be looking at for the XF300. But it would be NEW. But I love the XL form factor, and prefer the ccd over the cmos, and I like having the option for interchangeable lenses... yeah. Tough call.

I to prefer CCDs over CMOS. I've even considered getting an HPX500... But I wouldn't even think of getting a XLH1 with a nano.

Anyway wow you've been doing docus for over 30 years?! That's a lot of knowledge and experience:) The main reason I don't want 1/3 is because I would like to use this cam for other stuff to and because I would like that my docus would have a slight cinematic feel pictures-wise...

Any general advice Garry from your 30 years of doing docos to somebody who is just starting?:)

Honestly - the larger chip/shallow depth of field for documentary work - is a very slight percentage of what a doc calls for. Or certainly what a 'verite' doc calls for. I did a bit of grip work on a doc this weekend, they shot a live event, with SEVEN dslrs. It was a series of speakers, in a confined setting. Of course, each dslr had it's own operator, and a different lens and framing. So ultimately, it would all be cut together in post. But the work flow was really complex. Or rather - it was like a standard double system sound with film/magazine workflow.

The XLH-1 plus nanoflash does have some appeal - there's always the OPTION of using something like a letus. The Nanoflash has such a wide range of formats to choose from - it really extends the life of the XLH-1 and the CF cards are a not quite as pricey - plus you get the bonus of tape backup. I like having the choice of formats. ( 1080i60/50, 1080p30/25/24 or 720p60/50 at full raster 4:2:2 MPEG-2, at 50/100 Mbps (long GOP) or 100/160 Mbps (I-frame only).

Frankly, I think I'll probably go with the 1/3 sensor of either a 300 or the XL h1, and if I need to, add a dslr at a later point as a second camera for shallow DOF in interviews and such.

Honestly - the larger chip/shallow depth of field for documentary work - is a very slight percentage of what a doc calls for.


Not many docu's are done with shallow DOF but the ones that are immediately look more rich and interesting. Not saying that this is always and option - standard television type documentary formats are generally supposed to look "clean" and wary much television like... Yes?


Frankly, I think I'll probably go with the 1/3 sensor of either a 300 or the XL h1, and if I need to, add a dslr at a later point as a second camera for shallow DOF in interviews and such.

Do you plan on making a rig for the 300/XLH1?

The 300 would need a shoulder rig - as far as I can tell. I'm going to go put my hands on one next week. The Xlh-1(s) is the same form factor as the XL-2 - which I've been using - already good to go on that. In fact, I have the hi-def black and white viewfinder and the 16x manual lens already - plus all the batteries and filters and such that would port right over - another plus for the XL-h1 choice.

Ask me tomorrow which way I lean ;) I share your pain. So many cams are 'almost' what I want/ and need.

Sure I'd LOVE for Canon to come out with an XL form factor - APS-C sensor /Interchangeable lens with great zoom/ and 50mps 4.2.2 CF card form factor - for under 10k next month.

Sure I'd LOVE for Canon to come out with an XL form factor - APS-C sensor /Interchangeable lens with great zoom/ and 50mps 4.2.2 CF card form factor - for under 10k next month.

Haha:) And I would love if Panasonic released a micro 4/3, P2, 4:2:2 10 bit, AVCintra, camcorder next month - for under 10k!:)

I suppose you pays your money and make your choice but I doubt 2/3" CCD camera's will be under £10k, the HPX500 may be an option for you but it is getting old now although still a good camera but the 3100 is what you require but at a price.

That just about sums it up, yes! But still: HPX3100 doesn't have 720 50p. And I would probably miss that...

Anyway I still don't know what to do. I'll probably go for the 371 in the end and when the production kicks up a gear get something better... I was really hoping that the AF101 would be the next cam I buy but the low resolution just isn't good enough - at least not for the big screen. Or is it maybe?? It has approximately the same rez as HPX171 or HVX for that matter and I've heard from users that it came out nicely on the big screen when copied to film and in digital cinema also...

That's why the HPX371 is such a bargain, they put so much on board that if you can live with the 1/3" cmos chips there is not a lot to touch it for resolution and the codecs available, it even does varicam in 720p mode!

It's not just the 1/3 chips there's also the cmos chip... If you can live with this two thing then certainly: go for it.

Thought I'd chime in with a slightly different perspective though touched on in several posts: broadly, most docs still adhere to the idea of somehow objectively representing reality as faithfully as possible so in that sense fiction aesthetics such as shallow DOF are unimportant and for some, downright dishonest. Mind you more creative, subjective strategies do have their adherents too and here we could have a discussion about the purpose of documentary films and whether objectivity is ever attainable or even desirable. But I won't bore you with my own thoughts on that. My point is that it is a good idea to think about this as it could have an impact on the type of equipment purchased and most definitely how it would be used - Grierson's famous definition of documentary as 'the creative treatment of actuality' can be interpreted in many different ways.

Geoff

I am actually about to go all in on a doc. I own a EX3. Been looking hard at the other options for the more organic film look. But I've decided that there's no sense in it at the present time. I don't need to go into more dept just for that look. If the story is there, people will forget the rest. EX3 and Nano, I'm sticking to it.

Thought I'd chime in with a slightly different perspective though touched on in several posts: broadly, most docs still adhere to the idea of somehow objectively representing reality as faithfully as possible so in that sense fiction aesthetics such as shallow DOF are unimportant and for some, downright dishonest. Mind you more creative, subjective strategies do have their adherents too and here we could have a discussion about the purpose of documentary films and whether objectivity is ever attainable or even desirable. But I won't bore you with my own thoughts on that. My point is that it is a good idea to think about this as it could have an impact on the type of equipment purchased and most definitely how it would be used - Grierson's famous definition of documentary as 'the creative treatment of actuality' can be interpreted in many different ways.

Geoff

Yes I've thought about this. And I would like to produce cinematic docu's. Off course I don't want to restrain myself to only one type of a genre format but that is my goal. It is quite a broad description thought - but you should get the picture. Will be doing more of a standard TV type of docu's in the beginning where cinematic qualities are not important or subscribed.

I am actually about to go all in on a doc. I own a EX3. Been looking hard at the other options for the more organic film look. But I've decided that there's no sense in it at the present time. I don't need to go into more dept just for that look. If the story is there, people will forget the rest. EX3 and Nano, I'm sticking to it.

I've decided to. For my first docu I'll stick to my HPX171 and for the next couple of ones the HPX371. Beyond that when I'll start doing more cinematic stuff I'll post another topic!:)

'Will be doing more of a standard TV type of docu's in the beginning where cinematic qualities are not important or subscribed.'

It's interesting that TV is now the place of very conventional, incessantly formatted work in documentary and cinema, the more radical - a complete reversal of what it used to be. A famous broadcaster in the UK recently accused TV producers of having a collective loss of nerve where only ratings and budgets count and producers admit that the kind of documentaries they really want to commission hardly ever get made anymore.

'Will be doing more of a standard TV type of docu's in the beginning where cinematic qualities are not important or subscribed.'

It's interesting that TV is now the place of very conventional, incessantly formatted work in documentary and cinema, the more radical - a complete reversal of what it used to be. A famous broadcaster in the UK recently accused TV producers of having a collective loss of nerve where only ratings and budgets count and producers admit that the kind of documentaries they really want to commission hardly ever get made anymore.

And to add to that: I see that docu's are merging with reality. A couple of days ago I watched discovery and all I saw was reality. It's funny because the general crowd almost can't tell between one and another sometimes.

And to add to that: I see that docu's are merging with reality. A couple of days ago I watched discovery and all I saw was reality. It's funny because the general crowd almost can't tell between one and another sometimes.

and we now also have the mockumentary where the public are given a script or synopsis to follow!

It also boils down to cost at the end of the day but the 301/371 is the only sub £10k self contained camera out there that can shoot doco's to broadcast BBC spec and more importantly can sit on your shoulder with a form factor that suits that type of shooting all day long, yes a 2/3" camera would be my choice too but you have that in the HPX3100 albeit at a lot more cost!
The words "self contained" in the above are very important. If you're prepared to have a separate recorder, then I'd go for the PMW320 over the 301/371 any day. The savings of using CF in a nanoFlash, compared to P2, may even pay for the nanoFlash - depending how much memory you think you need.

The bigger chips make quite a difference in performance, especially in documentaries where low light performance may be a significant factor. With the 371 you have to put up with it being noisy when you think about gain - or put up with the "noise ghosting".

I agree that a large format sensor is unlikely to be a good idea when you say "shooting stiles should vary from cinema verite to eng ...." . Maybe nice for the work when you can spend time setting up - but not good for cinema verite..... So maybe not an F3 or AF101.

But the 1/2" of the PMW320 does give a significant improvement over 1/3" for control, and I'd say that 2/3" was arguably optimum for this sort of work. Much more control than 1/3" - but nowhere near as difficult to control as large format.

I really appreciate the notion of a "self contained" camera. I guess it would depend on the nature of the project but in most cases I wouldn't appreciate the extra work around an external recorder...

Do you really think there is such a big difference between 1/3 and 1/2? I've never shot with 1/2 so I have no field experience to compare the two. Bust just looking at the calculations the difference is negligible. 1/3 and 2/3 now there is a difference...

And yeah: the 320 is a better cam then the 371 for almost the same price. If I wouldn't already be invested in to P2 then I wouldn't even consider buying the 371. The "image ghosting" of the 371 is an absolutely nasty thing and the fact that Panasonic swept it under the rug (this is at least in my opinion how it went down...) makes me loose confidence in them...

I really appreciate the notion of a "self contained" camera. ...... in most cases I wouldn't appreciate the extra work around an external recorder...
I fully agree about the desirability of a self contained camera, and I've said many times in the past that I'd dearly love to see a 50Mbs version of such as the PMW350. That's really what a lot of people are crying out for. But if you have to compromise codec OR front end performance, I'd argue in favour of the former - you can always add an external recorder, you can't do anything about the front end. And you mentioned a possible desirability of ProRes recording? In which case, the ext recorder becomes a positive benefit.

The one thing I would say is that the recorder should power up with the camera, and go into record when you press the run button. An argument for buying camera/recorder as a package, and checking that before parting with money.
Do you really think there is such a big difference between 1/3 and 1/2? ....... But just looking at the calculations the difference is negligible. 1/3 and 2/3 now there is a difference...
As far as the calculations go, the difference for dof purposes is proportional to the square of linear dimensions.

So, if your reference is a given dof at f4 with a 2/3" camera, the same dof will be acieved with f2.8 with a 2/3" camera, and/or f2 with a 1/3" camera. So I disagree that the difference is "negligible" - it's the same as between 1/2" and 2/3"! I've already said that I think 2/3" gives "optimum" performance for the type of work you are talking about, so yes, I don't think 1/2" will be as suitable. But it follows that 1/3" will be even less suitable - by as much again.

You say a big reason for buying the 371 is that you're "already invested in to P2". It's worth bearing in mind that the sooner you sell any P2 cards, the more you'll get. As bigger, newer cards come out, the value of what you own is likely to go down quite quickly. Longer you leave it, less they'll be worth.

If you are working primarily for a client who demands a P2 workflow, then it's a big factor in favour of a 371, if you can't afford a 3100. If SxS is demanded, similarly for a PMW320.

I'm starting to think about an HPX501. Because if I think about it here in Slovenia the market isn't really demanding (picture quality/resolution wise) - so the low rez chips shouldn't be such a problem. And the 501 can be bought for less than 10k now days...
The only problem with the 501 would be for the big screen. There I could use a full raster chip - something with 1000 tv lines of rez...

Anyway the 3100 is a dream and is going to stay for a while. And as for the 50Mb codecs, why not 100Mb intraframe? I for one really appreciate an I-frame codec and am allergic to gop coding:)

I have heard very good things about the 500 and a lot of people really like it, I have also considered getting one myself as they are very good value at the moment and if you don't need full HD they make some very nice pictures. You can also get away with putting some of the nicer SD lenses on them and they will still give you a good form factor camera with 2/3" chips and P2. Like you I do not like long gop coding and the 371 and the 3100 are my current personal choices for HD shooting.

Yes the 501 could be a nice cam for docu's. It would pay for it self very quickly because of the low price. Even if it would be used only for let's say 2 docu's there wouldn't be any loss of funds. But I've been searching a bit and couldn't really find any 501 out there...

The 501 is a rare camera in the UK as most people like me use the 2700 or 3700, there are a few NTSC ones for sale but it may be that you find it hard to get a PAL one.