Thinking about purchasing HD200 and 2 GR-HD1 for multi-camera shooting of concerts and events. (Wish I could get 3 hd200 $$$). Has anyone compared the 720/30p of the GR-HD1 to that of the HD200?? Should look the same, correct? The look shouldn't be noticeable shot to shot if all in 720/30p, correct? I'm still trying to schedule my demo at Promax,....but would like some input from anyone who's seen shots from both cams.

Thanks
Ian

The picture quality of the HD1 is nowhere near that of the HD100.

Why not budget rental of HD100s for your shoots? I only own one HD100, but doesn't stop me from doing 5 camera shoots!

I get that a lot,.....but I just like to own my gear. I'm new to video. Spent a long time in audio,.....and people always said I should rent my mics,....but I'd just rather own. I'm probably being silly. I figured quality would be way off,....but is this to a fine eye?? Or even general audience?

If they're both shooting 720/30p,...than what other aspects are affecting the image? Compression? lens?,...Please someone educate me.

I get that a lot,.....but I just like to own my gear.

I do too, but not to the detriment of my projects.

I figured quality would be way off,....but is this to a fine eye?? Or even general audience?

No. People will notice. The two cameras are not even in the same ballpark.

If they're both shooting 720/30p,...than what other aspects are affecting the image? Compression? lens?,...Please someone educate me.

Mostly, the quality of the CCDs creating the image. Then the lens. Then a host of other factors. A shooting mode is just a specification...not an indication of quality by any means.

You really really need to see material from both cams back to back on a proper monitor before committing to this. I mean, I suppose if your budget is X and all it supports is HD1s and an HD100, then fine. But if you can at all do better, then you should.

The GR-HD1 is widely regarded as a poor HD camera...while the HD100 is can be considered one of the best of the new bunch of cams. Quite a gulf there.

If you're doing multicamera without some kind of remote exposure control, your images are going to be so different coming out of the cameras even if they're the same make and model that people are gonna notice. Depending on what you're trying to shoot, it may be better to rent an actual multicamera rig for the purpose of shooting the event. Whenever I hear about one of these pseudo-multicam rigs where you shoot and edit later, it's generally in the form of a bad review by a client who's hired me to shoot their show this year.

Stephen, I disagree.

There's a couple ways to insure consistent exposure with non-remoted cameras. I've been doing 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 multicamera post-edit shoots for a while now, and while I could share the laundry list of problems I've had, inconsistent exposure only gets me when I have had a really green camera operator.

Besides, for the purpose of an HD100 discussion, remote painting isn't an option. I'll assume other factors brought our poster to the decision of 720p production with the HD100.

I'm not meaning to be argumentative, just stating that it IS possible to do it non-switched and be successful.

Besides, for the purpose of an HD100 discussion, remote painting isn't an option.


At least until the HD250 comes out. :D

just stating that it IS possible to do it non-switched and be successful.

Don't disagree here. For me it really depends on the application. If you're shooting something where you're playing with the timeline a bit and it's heavily posted by its very nature, like reality TV or something like that, you practically have to shoot it this way. There are definite applications for this type of shooting, which is why in my original post I said "depending on what you're trying to shoot."

For a "live event" type of production, like a dance studio, concert, or theatrical production, I would definitely rather cut it live, maybe recording camera isos for backup. It's not just the picture, but all the little benefits like operator communication, tally lights, and program video returns that really bring out a lot more creativity from operators who are more aware of the production as a whole. Instead of acting like they're live all the time, they can really seek out shots when they see their tally disappear, and they can see in their returns what kind of shots are getting taken so they can get something that will cut with them. The production looks a lot better because instead of having to cut around whatever shots are good, the shots can react to the cuts, like starting a zoom or pan when the tally comes on. And the biggest benefit of all, you can turn around and give the client a master copy before your gear is even packed up. Ship it off to duplication and people will be watching it in their homes in two weeks at the outside.

Stephan, I agree.
Covering a live concert with only two cameras is a nightmare. Both cameras often end up on the same action area (singer) and suddenly the lead guitarist (usually in a different lighting pattern) takes his solo. Now we have both cameras swish panning to the guitarist and by the time we're zoomed in, irised up, and focused he's done with his solo and we're swishing back to the singer. The music is often so loud that communication and coordination of shots via open-miked headset to one another is impossible. And, by the way, they've asked you to supply the video feed for the IMAG. No thanks!
A concert almost has to be done with a director who can anticipate the next shot and direct the cameras accordingly and a tech who can adjust the camera control units on the fly. That's why a live event should be done with a switcher package, but that would preclude Ian from using his own cameras and, if done on a regular basis, would be too costly.
If Ian is seriously considering doing a lot of live events, another approach is to get two HD250s instead of the 200s. It gives him the flexibilty of using them like he would the 200s now, but eventually converting them into studio cameras with CCUs, studio housings, and a portable switcher at a later date.

The downside of the 250s is that they don't come with a stock lens. So as well as throwing down $9k for the camera, you've gotta spend $$$ on a lens to go with it.

For operator communication in a loud environment, I highly recommend these headsets (http://www.davidclark.com/ProAudio/). I first heard about them from a camera operator who shoots NASCAR for Fox, but I've found they work equally well at a rock concert. It's a standard 4-pin intercom connector, so you can plug it into your camera, clearcom, RTS, telex, whatever.

What I've found helpful when directing concerts, especially artists I don't know, is having someone familiar with the music sit next to me in the control room letting me know if anything special is coming up. It sometimes takes a little bit to get them used to feeding me what I need to know when I need it, but when we get the lines of communication worked out the end result looks about eleventy billion times better.

Wow,...you guys are great. I didn't even really know what I wanted to do until I got this thread going and you guys ran with it. Thanks.

Let me now be a little more clear with what I'm doing.

I would like to shoot live concerts on three cams and cut in post. I do know the band's set, and when things will be happening(ie solos, dramatic moments etc.),...what I'm most concerned with now is getting the shots to look the same,...(atleast quality). What is a remote exposure control? I tried looking but couldn't find anything. Can't the setting on each cam just be the same? I realize that positioning of light and movement are going to effect,....but I'm looking for close,....not maniacally perfect.

Is this Gen-Lock? is that what I'm looking for in a camera then?? Like the Xl-H1?

Ian

[QUOTE=Stephan Ahonen]The downside of the 250s is that they don't come with a stock lens. So as well as throwing down $9k for the camera, you've gotta spend $$$ on a lens to go with it. QUOTE]


For some people, this is a desired purchasing method - buying the camera separately from the lens. This gives them the freedom to choose from several lenses. Many users that are buying cameras in this price range often want something more than the entry-level lens. By the time the GYHD250 is released, there is supposed to be about five 1/3" native lenses to choose from.

It is also quite possible that we will have the GY-HD250 packaged with several lens choices. There will probably also be full studio configured packages. The GY-HD250 will be sold into a wide variety of applications. The preliminary list price of $8995 for the head only is simply to give a reference point. All will become more clear as the camera nears it's release, and the packages are announced.

Regards, Carl

What is a remote exposure control?

In a live broadcast truck your cameras will be running into a bunch of CCUs, or Camera Control Units. A specialist operator in the truck will sit in front of a bunch of these things (http://www.mediacollege.com/video/production/camera-control/sony-ccu.jpg) riding the iris, white balance, shutter, gain, etc. controls to ensure that the cameras look the same when cutting between them. The camera operators only worry about composition and focus, the actual "shading" of the cameras is taken care of by the video operator in the truck.

It's not quite enough to just make sure the menu settings are the same because sometimes even two cameras of the same make and model will exhibit slight differences even with the same settings. It's not usually overly noticeable, but I'm such an obsessive freak that I'll spend a couple minutes with a vectorscope and waveform monitor doing voodoo magic to make them match perfectly.

How much difference between cameras you're willing to put up with is up to you, and you'd probably be fine if what you're shooting has stable enough lighting that you can just "set and forget" everything. But if it's anything like most rock band gigs I see (and I'm a gigging rock drummer), you'll have enough changing lighting conditions to give anyone a hard time matching cameras.

Is this Gen-Lock?

No, genlock is only needed if you are switching video live, since video switchers generally require all incoming video signals to have the same timing. Imagine your cameras as different members of a band. If they can't hear each other, they'll all be playing different beats, and you won't be able to use them together. Genlock is like a metronome that locks them all together so they can be used together. Best way to explain it as long as we're talking about rock bands. =D


For some people, this is a desired purchasing method


Of course, and in fact it would be my desired purchasing method. I was just saying that it might be a bit out of the original poster's budget, since it would just about double the cost per camera.

Here your go Ian, I've even found you a video switcher http://www.newtek.com/tricaster It's even got a rudimentary CCU (called a TBC/proc amp) on each video input channel that would allow you to align the colors of each camera so they're all roughly the same. There're no tally lights, no intercom, and trying to match the cameras to your friend's Sony camera without the JVC RM-210 would be next to impossible, but it would get you by until you can get together enough money to convert the 250s into proper studio cams.

Thanks everybody,.....you've all been so helpful

Just a note that the tricaster is standard def. If you're just doing cuts and dissolves there are a number of cheap HD switchers out there, mostly intended for VJing and the like, but I haven't done the research since I don't really deal with that kind of stuff.

Personally, my suggestion with your budget would be to just get a few 9" 16x9 capable SD monitors, run composite from the cameras to the monitors, and just communicate with the camera operators while watching the monitors, doing the actual editing in post like you intended to originally. That's what's typically done for reality TV like the American Idol auditions.

Just a note that the tricaster is standard def. If you're just doing cuts and dissolves there are a number of cheap HD switchers out there, mostly intended for VJing and the like, but I haven't done the research since I don't really deal with that kind of stuff.


Stephan - I only do about 3 concerts a year but I ISO each camera and post - reason: I was always mightily disappointed with the quality loss when going through a composite switcher and really at the cheap end of the market there wasn't much else available. When I compared a composite recording done through the Panny vision switcher to a Digibeta with possibly one of the best composite decoders in the world, it was noisy and muddy compared to the original DV tapes. So I still call the shots which gives me the freedom on the 3 cameras to get the good close ups and singles, but I ISO. If I could have afforded component connection and vision switcher I think I would then be tempted to switch live with ISO's as a backup. I haven't really had a problem matching cameras.

I agree with John. You definitely don't want to get a composite switcher, but for $5,000 the Tricaster Pro gives you a component switcher, an HD editor package, allows you to stream, yada yada. At next year's NAB Newtek will be demoing the Tricaster HD with HD-SDI inputs which will probably sell in the $15,000 area.
A big part of concerts and other live events these days is a live-switched video feed to the projectors - IMAG. So a switcher package would give Ian yet another selling point in getting concert and other event gigs. And he'd have it paid off with three or four good jobs.
I also like John's idea of iso'ing each camera. The Tricaster is a computer based switcher, so it's subject to crashing just like any computer is. Stick an 80 gig drive on each camera and you've got a high quality safety backup.

Problem with IMAG is you can't cut it like you'd cut a DVD. IMAG needs to be all tight, all the time, with very few wideshots because the people on the screen can't end up smaller than they are in real life. Taking the IMAG cut for a DVD would result in a very claustrophobic-feeling production with no feel for the room the performance is occurring in. So you cut two shows, one for IMAG, one for your DVD, either live or in post. The problem with that is if a camera is live on IMAG, it's "tied down" so you can't do moves or get interesting shots with it. Let's say camera 1 is live on IMAG with a tight of the singer, camera 3 is live on DVD program with something else. With 3 cameras that only leaves you one other camera to get you any other shots you want, and if you decide to go back to the singer it will be exactly the same shot of the singer throughout the entire show, which is a huge no-no for me because I hate taking the same shot twice in close succession. It almost requires you to bring in one or two extra cameras just for IMAG purposes. Standard def should work, and that way you can keep talking to your 3 "core" hi-def cameras without tying any of them down on the screen.

Stephan-
I think we can all agree that the more cameras you can have on a shoot the better, especially if they're each iso'ed for post. But getting back to Ian's situation of buying two HD200s for covering live events, what's your recommendation, 200s or 250s?
If he were a film maker looking to buy one good HDV camera I'd agree that the 200 is worth waiting for. After all it's got the viewfinder inversion feature that allows you to use film camera prime lenses (the 250 doesn't) and it's a couple of grand cheaper. But if he is going to buy TWO cameras it just seems to me to make sense to spend a little more up front on the 250s that gives him the flexibility to grow his investment into a complete system at a later date.