Whats the difference between digital cinema camera and ENG/EFP camera?

[Peter Berger]

I am wondering whats the difference between digital cinema camera and ENG/EFP camera and whats the difference between cinema lenses and ENG/EFP lenses? Can somebody explain to me? I know that cinema cameras are ment for movies etc. and ENG for broadcast, but whats the difference between them? Thanks.

[Simon Wood]

ENG cameras were traditionally built with smaller sensors (2/3) so that its easier to keep everything in focus than a S35 sensor (all thing being equal).

ENG cameras were traditionally built to be carried on the shoulder of the cameraman, and were easy to operate solo. For this reason they usually had just a viewfinder (no need for external monitors) and no need for follow focus and no need for elaborate rigs - you just pick them up and go.

ENG cameras often have big old expensive zoom lenses, often with motor driven zooms (something unlikely in cinema cameras) - this is especially useful in news and sports, allowing the operator to reframe live at a constant speed, without causing much disruption to the tv audience.

ENG cameras traditionally met minimum broadcast standards - but its all become blurred these days, so its difficult to tell what the standards are any more. They normally would have had SDI out and genlock for studio integration - something that was not common on prosumer cameras or cinema cameras. But the distinction is more blurred these days, especially as cinemas cameras are digital, and news is being often shot on large sensor cameras (giving the 'film-look' to news broadcasts).

Thats looks like a very sweet hybrid camera.

[Bill Davis]

Actually, the topic can be a bit more complex than it might first appear.

ENG and EFP are actually workflows.

In Electronic News Gathering (ENG) the focus is on covering a breaking story. Typically the footage generated will end up being narrated by the reporter or on-set news presenter - so the emphasis is on grabbing field footage that can be edited to support a live style report. The ENG camera-person typically either grabs nat sound via a camera mounted mic, or uses a stick mic to do a live location interview. The point of ENG is that it's real-time and largely unplanned, reacting to events as they unfold.

In Electronic Field Production (EFP) you go out to shoot a pre-scripted story. Since you know the story elements that are pre-planned, it makes more sense to setup and "shoot with intent" to capture the scenes you have already decided will build your story properly. You can rig and hide mics on the participant to give the illusion that the viewer is just "looking in" on naturally occurring events. Lighting is typically more elaborate and multiple takes to get the best performance of each part of the script are common.

In "cinema production" you generally want a camera with enough resolution to work for movie-screen size playback. When you think about movies, the core process is that because one is typically creating a lasting work to entertain large audiences over a long time - rather than content that may have a shorter useful lifespan. Because of that dynamic, cinema generally takes a more planned and precise approach to image making.

In the field, a single lens that can be zoomed to multiple focal lengths is a huge benefit, since you don't have time to swap lenses to achieve particular looks. In a cinema production workflow, it's typically expected that the DP will choose particular lenses (often fast primes) to create shots that capture exactly the view that they feel best fits the communication goals of that scene.

So in the broadest possible terms, Zooms are fast and flexible, if not always optimal. Primes are more complex and require more time to deploy, but can be much faster — a full frame sensor medium range zoom might typically be rated at F4, while a prime can be as fast as F1.2, a huge difference in light gathering ability.

In general, ENG processes is for fast capture and deployment of short life span information (news stories.) EFP is for building general content with medium life spans (e.g. instructional or corporate video type projects.) And Cinema workflows are traditionally used for building precisely crafted content expected to have relatively long life-spans (movies and theatrical docs.)

All of these definitions and rules of thumb are busted all the time. And you can use any tool to make any type of project, but these are some of the broad generatlities in play.

Hope that helps.

[Jon Fairhurst]

My perspective slightly different:

Digital Cinema - Non real time use.

ENG - Pseudo real time use. Maybe you're on-camera live, like in a current weather event, or you're capturing and interview and some B-roll, editing it in the truck, and sending the story (for instance a report about the new lunch program at the local school) back before the six o'clock news. Whether live or creating a story from earlier in the day, it's a one camera shoot. Typically on the shoulder or a tripod.

EFP - live events. In the case of sports (or news or SNL), this is used for true live use in a multi-camera environment. It includes tallies and a voice system so the Technical Director can interact with the camera op. This is typically tripod-only, as the lenses used can be very large and heavy. In the case of a game show, the production is done in a live style, rather than in post. They can also be used live in large worship settings.

[Giroud Francois]

eng is all aboard. Cinema is modular.
On cinema camera, there is no ND filter, no sound processing (or minimal) , and sometime not even a recorder. Lens are totally different (prime) with different mount.
ENG camera is a one man operation, cinema is supposed to be teamwork.
Low light is not an asset for Cinema, if you need more light, you ask the lighting team to bring more.
cinema camera has no mount, like shoulder mount, the tripod has all on it.
and so on...

[Brian Drysdale]

I wouldn't say that cinema digital cameras don't have shoulder mounts, the Arri Alexa and the new Aaton Penelope Delta can be shoulder mounted without accessories. The Alexa is also being used to shoot high end documentaries.

[Giroud Francois]

yes there a tons of exception, but basically you got it.
Cinema is a lego, you can do anything, but you have to add it (recorder, matte box, filter, handle, follow focus etc...) while the purpose of ENG is to offer ready to shoot.

[Brad Kraus]

Sorry to bump such an old thread but I was searching to find a decent explanation of the differences between ENG, EFP and Cine equipment and workflows and the info in this thread really helped me wrap my head around it so I thought it was worth resurrecting.

Now seeing that this thread is 6 years old and technology has moved forward, does anyone think there is anything new that needs to be added; or does this pretty much still wrap it all up nicely?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Even though 6 years has past and a lot has changed, in many ways nothing meaningful has changed. These categories of cameras and shooting styles still exist.

I always find it a little odd that the person who started the thread often never responds to all the lengthy well thought out responses.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

I always find it a little odd that the person who started the thread often never responds to all the lengthy well thought out responses.

It's definitely odd, but it doesn't bother me very much. There's always a large lurking audience that absorbs the discussion and learns from it. The original poster might not ever respond, but rest assured that plenty of other people read it all and benefit from it.

[John Nantz]

Hey Brad -

Originally Posted by Brad Kraus

Now seeing that this thread is 6 years old and technology has moved forward, does anyone think there is anything new that needs to be added; or does this pretty much still wrap it all up nicely?

... you did good! Yes, there has been a lot of technical change. Noticed that smart phones wasn't in the discussion back then yet their videos have been making it into the news programs a lot, but I still wouldn't call 'em an ENG cam. Or even security cams for that matter.

Thanks for the bump ... good read.

I really liked Giroud's comment:

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

Low light is not an asset for Cinema, if you need more light, you ask the lighting team to bring more.

There's some great little nuggets of info here!

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Good lightning seems obvious but often gets lost especially for weddings with A7s. Although with event work it’s often not appropriate or feasible to light properly. I was actually recently looking at led fresnels. Weighing my options between $400 cam tv boltzen, $1,200 Practilite, I’m probably sticking with my hot light. Don’t do enough to justify the expense.

[Seth Bloombaum]

I really appreciate the descriptions of ENG and EFP workflows from Bill & Jon. My experience in my early professional days was more like Bill’s. But then there’s a lot of differences in terminologies between regions, and several industries. We could move on to a hard question, like “What’s the framing of a CU?”

With the addition that along with day to day ENG for news and programming, we did a lot of EFP in producing commercials. Usually shooting video to 1” type C, which really required a video engineer on the crew. The same crew was sometimes shooting 35mm film.

Another set of terms I find useful:
Cinematography - you’re in control of the set.
Videography - you’re not.