HDCAM or XDCAM HD.. which on?!!!

[Oliver Neubert]

Originally Posted by Yasser Saeed

Hi everyone .. :)

I was deciding to go with Sony CineAlta HDCAM F900R for my top quality TV advertising production, but some friends recommended to go with Sony XDCAM HD 700, because its price is FAR lower, and the picture quality is similar. Is that true?? If yes, why the huge difference in price? If not, is the quality difference noticeable?

I was recommended as well to use Wafian Direct-to-Disk HD video recorder with CineForm codecs to achieve better picture quality than recording straight to tape with F900R, or Disk with the 700. Is that true also?? and how?

Finally, can I use Letus adapter with either cameras to get better DOF?

I appreciate any help ...

Hi Yasser

If you are still interested in the 900, a dealer here in Switzerland is selling their rental version for 30'000 Swiss Francs instead of 188'000... (it seems the national Broadcaster is just buying the XDCAM HD 422, hence they can't get rid of the HDCAM anymore)
here is the link...

Schweizer AG :: Professionelle Videotechnik ->> Occasionen

[Thierry Humeau]

This may explain why the quality of the CCD/CMOS sensor may be more important that just the color space.

T.

[Alister Chapman]

If your looking at second hand there is a big difference between the 900 and 900R. 900's can be picked up really cheap but that's an old camera now and technology has moved on.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

If your looking at second hand there is a big difference between the 900 and 900R. 900's can be picked up really cheap but that's an old camera now and technology has moved on.

The F900 advertised looks like a version 1, so that's really old, usually you only come across the F900v3 these days. Even these are now tending to be replaced by the F900R in the rental fleets.

Sony have brought out the HDW 650 which is the latest version of HDCAM camera. There's a lot of HDCAM kit out there and it'll be serviceable in broadcast work for many years to come.

[Alister Chapman]

It's more a comment on the age of the camera than on HDCAM as a format. You do have to consider that the cost of ownership of a tape based camcorder can be a lot higher than the cost of ownership of a disc or solid state camera. Tape transports must be kept clean, serviced regularly and heads need replacing every 1000 to 2000 hours depending on how the camera is used. A new upper/lower drum fitted and aligned along with pinch rollers etc for an F900 costs as much as an EX1. I would also want to take a good look at the CCD's on an older camera as the masking circuits are limited to the number of out of spec pixels they can mask. It only takes a couple of trans-atlantic flights to fill the masking memory. If the memory is full and you get a hot pixel mid screen your in for some serious bills.

Also most of the file based workflows are so much cheaper, easier and faster, saving further money. You don't need expensive playback or record decks (which also wear out).

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

It's more a comment on the age of the camera than on HDCAM as a format. You do have to consider that the cost of ownership of a tape based camcorder can be a lot higher than the cost of ownership of a disc or solid state camera. Tape transports must be kept clean, serviced regularly and heads need replacing every 1000 to 2000 hours depending on how the camera is used. A new upper/lower drum fitted and aligned along with pinch rollers etc for an F900 costs as much as an EX1. I would also want to take a good look at the CCD's on an older camera as the masking circuits are limited to the number of out of spec pixels they can mask. It only takes a couple of trans-atlantic flights to fill the masking memory. If the memory is full and you get a hot pixel mid screen your in for some serious bills.

Also most of the file based workflows are so much cheaper, easier and faster, saving further money. You don't need expensive playback or record decks (which also wear out).

You really need to know the needs of your clients. If you're mostly doing everything in house, the tapeless workflow makes a lot of sense. However, if you're working mostly for people still using HDCAM, that would be the way to go.

Best be careful with older kit, especially if it's been worked hard by say a broadcaster.

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

You really need to know the needs of your clients. If you're mostly doing everything in house, the tapeless workflow makes a lot of sense. However, if you're working mostly for people still using HDCAM, that would be the way to go.

Provided your clients intend to stick with HDCAM for the pay-back period of your chosen camera. Used HDCAM prices are tumbling which is a reflection on the number being traded in for other formats. I may be wrong but buying HDCAM now would IMHO be a bold move as in a couple of years time you may have an expensive camera that no one wants and has little second hand value. However if you have a job or jobs that are guaranteed to recoup the costs of the camera then go for it. Otherwise renting could be the safest option.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Otherwise renting could be the safest option.

Renting makes a lot of sense these day with the high end cameras, there are so many currently HD formats out there.

I know one rental company took 18 months as the pay back time on a high end video camera from the rentals, after that being the profit.