The HVX200 is not a prosumer camera

[Charles Papert]

So many people have reported this here that I guess it is true, which is a shame. But many have also had good results when they dress their DV cameras up with matteboxes, follow focus, onboard monitors etc., all of which serve a purpose as well as window dressing, so this may be a good solution for a small camera.

I will say that I draw the line at the occasionally reported phenomenon actors responding differently (in a negative way) to the sight of a DV camera. I've never yet experienced this. My inference is that they are responding more to the overall vibe and respect for their process that they are being given, and perhaps that is what is lacking in such productions. If anything, the actors I've worked with on DV jobs are appreciative that it tends to take less time in between setups (compared to full-blown film or HD, for instance).

[Rob McCardle]

heh,

Hey Charles,
some of the talent out there oughta be scared with hd -

"How am I looking - not too close - can you defocus a little ..."

[Les Dit]

I think I'm the one that started this 'prosumer' thing, when I called the HVX as such.
It does have the handicam configuration, after all.

But hey, if you are shooting gorilla style ( no permit ) you are at a huge advantage with a handicam looking thing! However, put a tripod under it, and there come the rent-a-cops.

Q: Is the HVX lens focus via indirect electric servo? That's another 'consumer' trait.

-Les

[Walter Graff]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The XL1 did not start the revolution, not by a long shot. That distinction falls squarely on the Sony VX1000. The revolution began when this camera first hit the streets in 1995, two full years before the Canon XL1.

I'll partially give you that Chris, but it was the XL1 that put a new form of moviemaking in peoples minds.

[Walter Graff]

And don't forget about the TV remote control or the date setting feature, two consumer giveaways.

But really this camera like all prosumer cameras borrows off of professional cameras. Zebras are a perfect example as is memory cards. In fact P2 itself is an offshoot of the professional version that didn't make the killing Panasonic hoped for so they made it a consumer camera with P2 to make back what they never got. The schematics were already drawn, it was simply to put it in a small camera format.

It's a great camera for the money and should make lot of folks very happy.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

But really this camera like all prosumer cameras borrows off of professional cameras. Zebras are a perfect example as is memory cards. In fact P2 itself is an offshoot of the professional version that didn't make the killing Panasonic hoped for so they made it a consumer camera with P2 to make back what they never got. The schematics were already drawn, it was simply to put it in a small camera format.
.

Calling the HVX a "consumer" camera certainly doesn't fly.
These days consumer cameras fit in your palm and cost about as much as a P2 card.
Branding tools by category is simply an internal corporate issue.
Anyone who makes a living with them knows that it's all irrelevant.

I liked what Charles said about talent and DV...my experience completely.
Besides, an XL2 with mattebox and Mini35 and cine primes on it is more "pro" looking than an Aton 16mm...whatever that's worth...maybe bragging rights, but hardly transfers to the screen.

If you've produced in multiple formats using similar production techniques then you realize that words like "pro", and "prosumer" are pretty silly and meaningless.

To even apply them to discussions of HD tools like either the Canon or Panasonic makes no sense at all.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

My thoughts on the camera......I agree with what has been said about the HVX200 image/options being professional. Im sure it would have good production value when used with decent DP, lighting, and sound gear.....but as most of us know having a pro level camera body matters alot when shooting and selling commercail videography services.

John

I don't get this. I mean if you're talking about the difference between a palm-corder and a reasonable camera maybe, but are you saying that, for instance an Xl1 or XL2 or XL-H1 (all the same basic form factor) have a disadvantage over some larger ENG or other rig?

I've shown up with a 3 or 4 man crew and an XL to clients that were literally dealing with 40 man crews and cranes and 35mm the day before and never had them question anything for a moment.

We've produced a lot in the last two years at an international venue where virtually every week someone from NBC to ESPN is set up with multi-cam coverage and the whole nine yards.

We're always seen as the "filmmakers" who are doing the longer format narrative and documentary side of those stories and events, and it's always with an XL2 and setup that can fit in an Expedition.

I've had the network producers smile knowingly as I've directed this work around them.

Ultimately what matters exclusively is not the form of your camera body but your creative vision and how you execute it and how it's received. In 20 years as a producer and director I have never...not once, had a client or perspective client ask me what kind of camera we were shooting with unless the discussion was video versus film.

[Michael Pappas]

While I'm waiting for the HVX200 PDF manual to print, I will come up with suitable phrases.


Either

Small Form Professional HDcams

Small Form Professional HD Camcorders

Small Form Professional High Definition Cameras

Professional Compact HD Camcorders

Professional Compact HDcams

Professional Compact High Definition Cameras

Professional Compact High Definition Camcorders

Compact Professional HD Camcorders

Compact Professional High Definition Systems

Compact Professional High Definition Equipment


If those are prosumer then I guess The Aaton Super16 A-Minima camera is to since in fits in your hand, and it's waaaaaaaaaayyyy smaller then a fully loaded Panavision-Arriflex 35mm camera.

If you don't know this camera take a look here...

Links: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/a...aminimafaq.php

http://www.scancam.no/Images/aminima04.jpg

http://www.camex.hu/a-minima.jpg

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/e...nimaCamera.jpg

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

[Charles Papert]

While I know you are being somewhat facetious Michael, I think it worth mentioning that with film, the size of the camera has no difference on the image quality it can capture; the A-Minima is capable of producing the same pictures as the largest 16mm camera out there (which in my mind would have to be the Panavision Elaine). But as we know, a 1/3" camera cannot produce the same images as a 2/3" camera.

[Michael Pappas]

I am having fun with this, your right!

But, I am serious that these are small form professional cameras; that come with trade offs due to their size. That doesn't make them not Professional.

In the film biz, 16 and s16 would get a bad wrap as the bastard of the film formats. I know DP's who would call 16 a toying around format. Todays vision s16 is awesome.

The 1/3 ccd of 1995 doesn't compare to the 1/3 ccd's technology of 2006. Today's pro 1/3 ccd's are better than early 90's professional 2/3 ccd cameras. So if that 2/3's of early 90's perfomance level was pro then, no reason that this current 1/3ccd performance is not today.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

While I know you are being somewhat facetious Michael, I think it worth mentioning that with film, the size of the camera has no difference on the image quality it can capture; the A-Minima is capable of producing the same pictures as the largest 16mm camera out there (which in my mind would have to be the Panavision Elaine). But as we know, a 1/3" camera cannot produce the same images as a 2/3" camera.

[Charles Papert]

I write this from Stage 18 at Warner Brothers, on the set of "Gilmore Girls" where I am spending a couple of months; three soundstages full of beautiful sets (and all wifi-equipped, yowsah!) plus a large chunk of backlot, and all are captured on Super 16, as are various other shows including "Scrubs". And then there's films like "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Station Agent", also S16 efforts. Hard to imagine that any DP still thinks it's a toy format.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

I write this from Stage 18 at Warner Brothers, on the set of "Gilmore Girls" where I am spending a couple of months; three soundstages full of beautiful sets (and all wifi-equipped, yowsah!) plus a large chunk of backlot, and all are captured on Super 16, as are various other shows including "Scrubs". And then there's films like "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Station Agent", also S16 efforts. Hard to imagine that any DP still thinks it's a toy format.

What do think the are chances of shows like that shooting in HD in the future Charles?

[Michael Pappas]

Hi Charles, I said " would " twice, as in pastence. Long ago. In the 80's s16mm & 16 did get a bad wrap.

Sorry that I did not clarify that better...

pappas

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

What do think the are chances of shows like that shooting in HD in the future Charles?

I don't have experience as a professional DP, but my personal opinion is, very big!
Because who will notice the difference on a television screen?
You can even get away with well shot DV footage on a television screen.

(I mean of course, BESIDES TECHNICAL GEEKS like the ones going around these boards ;-))

[Michael Pappas]

Not true.

Show's shot in film have a pathway into HD syndication. Sitcoms that were shot in ntsc video look very bad in the HD realm. Show's shot on film like Cheers, FamilyTies, Seinfeld, Friends all shot in film can be retransferred and look even better with modern grading technology in the HD realm.

You shoot for the future. The archive; think Library. Presentation technology improves; film for that possibility.
Back in the late 80's & early 90's I sat in on these very discussions in Hollywood among engineers and DP's. Presevering the best and aquiring the best master. Just cause your client can't utilize the HD now, he just might come knocking on your door down the road wanting a better version. It's a lot cheaper than shooting the whole project over to a higher standard. Start as high as your budget will allow, and then work your way down if that is were the final product goes.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

I don't have experience as a professional DP, but my personal opinion is, very big!
Because who will notice the difference on a television screen?
You can even get away with well shot DV footage on a television screen.




(I mean of course, BESIDES TECHNICAL GEEKS like the ones going around these boards ;-))