multi-camera shoots HD200, +2 JVC GR-HD1

John Mitchell · May 25th, 2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

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.

Bob Fierce · May 25th, 2006, 02:52 PM

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.

Stephan Ahonen · May 27th, 2006, 07:22 AM

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.

Bob Fierce · May 29th, 2006, 11:37 AM

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.

May 25th, 2006, 02:52 PM	#17
Bob Fierce New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 19	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.

May 27th, 2006, 07:22 AM	#18
Stephan Ahonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 512	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.

May 29th, 2006, 11:37 AM	#19
Bob Fierce New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 19	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.