Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on April 08, 2015, 05:27:13 pm
-
What do you pro video shooters think about the XC10?
To my ignorant eyes it feels like Canon may have gotten it very right here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks very impressive with a nice large sensor for shallow dof - so does the 4K C300 ll.
But at first glance that leaves a big price gap to get to interchangeable glass between the fixed lens 4K XC10 and the 4K C300. I would expect something in the 'middle'... he said, hoping ))
[EDIT] What am I thinking?? 1" sensor is tiny... Hmmmm maybe less impressive than I thought. I'll stick with my GH4s ))
-
That's the rub. It's too small a sensor from a DOF perspective. Otherwise not bad.... except...no stabilization in 4K; only in HD. That makes it a fail to my eyes.
M
-
It's too small a sensor from a DOF perspective.
Nonsense. It's fine.
Yes, the kids kidding themselves they're 'cinematographers' having uploaded a handful of dreadful out of focus vimeo clips will wail about too much DoF, but it's going to be a really important camera for the industry.
A growing number of people are realising that shallow DoF doesn't automatically make good pictures, in fact it rarely does.
Paul
(A broadcast professional who actually makes programmes for a living.)
-
Nonsense. It's fine.
Yes, the kids kidding themselves they're 'cinematographers' having uploaded a handful of dreadful out of focus vimeo clips will wail about too much DoF, but it's going to be a really important camera for the industry.
A growing number of people are realising that shallow DoF doesn't automatically make good pictures, in fact it rarely does.
Paul
(A broadcast professional who actually makes programmes for a living.)
Of course the issue isn't whether or not there is enough depth of field, the issue is what the user's purpose it?
Many people want shallow DOF for a theatrical / filmic look. Others not.
So, with all due respect, it's not "nonsense" and it's not "fine". One first has to find out what the shooters intentions are, then it's either appropriate or not.
If shallow DOF were not important to many people for creative purposes the DSLR video revolution wouldn't be where it is now. Certainly no one bought the Canon 5D because it was such a great video camera.
Similarly the lack of stabilization in 4K will be a deal killer for some, but not for others. For the theatrical production crowd, not so much, as they may be on sticks much of the time. For run-and-gun, as a said, a deal killer.
Michael
-
Many people want shallow DOF for a theatrical / filmic look. Others not.
So, with all due respect, it's not "nonsense" and it's not "fine". One first has to find out what the shooters intentions are, then it's either appropriate or not.
Er, you were the one that started by saying "It's too small a sensor from a DOF perspective".
Now you're saying you shouldn't judge a camera until you know what people want from it. Make your mind up.
-
Looks very impressive with a nice large sensor for shallow dof - so does the 4K C300 ll.
But at first glance that leaves a big price gap to get to interchangeable glass between the fixed lens 4K XC10 and the 4K C300. I would expect something in the 'middle'... he said, hoping ))
[EDIT] What am I thinking?? 1" sensor is tiny... Hmmmm maybe less impressive than I thought. I'll stick with my GH4s ))
Canon is like that kid in class that hands in a 200 word essay when 500 words is required (x-10) then get's admonished so next time writes 4000 words and hands it in 4 weeks late. (C300 II).
In today's world nobody needs a small 1" sensor in a small camera, large or small, unless your shooting from a drone or small handheld and lack of IS is going to be an issue.
When they announced this Camera, the guys at Panasonic were probably dancing down the hallways.
Anyway . . .
For shooting advertising especially fast lifestyle one of the biggest "challanges" on location is selective focus and watching out for logos, signs, recognizable bystanders in the background.
We just completed a project and for legal clearance removed 5 logos and we we're very, very, very mindful of this and produced art work to cover most of the logos that were accessable.
Without the ability to throw the background soft, we would have had to remove 50.
For all of these mid range to low priced cameras every company should have superb shake reduction/image stabilization. No excuses, even for home movies.
I really would have loved for Canon to make a full sensor read out 70d sampled to 4k or uhd, with a little better sound shielding and input/outputs and a clip on evf. That would have been a gh4 competitor and kept a lot of people in the Canon arena and I assume that will be in the next 5d4 though I think apsc/ super 35 is a better format than full frame 35mm just due to sensor read out and jello cam issues.
Now the 4000 word essay camera.
The C300 might be a winner, but they're still priced higher than some of the competition and still require a separate model for EF or PL mount lenses. (that one I truly don't get).
Anyway, I was looking forward to the c300 II and will give it a test when it's out, though this week worked a little bit with a Sony F5 and that's one hell of a camera for the price. It's got the same Sonyness proprietary weirdness of adding internal boards for 2k (only) pro rezz and separate recorders for 4k raw, but in size, weight, battery power and build quality it's a very good professional camera.
I hate rumors but I was told a few times that people that should know that when the 5d video craze hit the streets a few years ago, the suits in Hollywood, invited Canon in with a request to build an easier to use, cheaper, faster (i.e. cheaper) camera to produce episodic TV and medium budget theatrical.
Obviously people use Canons on set all the time, but not so much for A camera work, usually B cam, small area cam, in car cam, background plates etc.
The Arri has dominated medium to high end for A cam and I think some of this is DP's and operators are accustom to Arri, but given how fast they edit and do post today, I believe the main advantage of the Arri is the ability to produce an in camera 444 prores or DNxHD with a lot of stops and color.
That's why the next RED will shoot prores.
But bottom line is if you want more dof, it's easy, just stop down. (note to pesky kids and their out of focus vimeos) insert smiley face.
BC
-
Er, you were the one that started by saying "It's too small a sensor from a DOF perspective".
Now you're saying you shouldn't judge a camera until you know what people want from it. Make your mind up.
We'll this is your second post in a row where you've been somwhat rude. I ignored the first one, but not this time.
It is possible to have a debate without an aggressive tone. I suggest that you give it a try.
Michael
Ps: Of course the intended application is important in any product review.
Sometimes it's implicit rather than explicit.
I assume an adult, literate audience, and therefore don't always feel the need to spell things out.
-
1" CMOS Sensor and DIGIC DV 4 processor
UltraHD 4K at 29.97/25/23.98p
H.264 recording in MFX wrapper
Up to 305 Mbps 4K / 50 Mbps HD recording
SDHC/SDXC and CFast card slots
HDMI output - supports 4K monitoring
10x zoom / 8.9 to 89mm focal length
f/2.8 to 5.6 aperture range
100 to 20,000 ISO range
Ergonomic tilting hand grip
Built-in Wi-Fi
Dear Canon, just because you can build it doesn't mean you should.
-
There is a large corporate/institutional market for video cameras; these need to make sharp images, have a decent zoom, decent sound and work in the hands of random people and make their operator look "professional". Such cameras are seen at events, talks, conferences, tradeshows, theaters, sports etc and are used to create an institutional memory of what took place.
A camera that fits this market should be slightly expensive but not too much.
I guess the Canon will fit this market well. Canon don't care about us members of this forum, they care about their sales numbers, and corporate video is a market which is doing very well thank you, as cellphones don't have zooms, are rarely seen on tripods, and don't work well for long recordings because the owner wants to text :)
I hope I have obeyed the tradition of this forum and bashed the product without disrespect to other forum participants, all of who doubtless bring much more knowledge to bear than my humble and cynical worldview :)
Edmund
-
What I know about video rounds to zero, but could this kind of "platform" be where (high-end) consumer camcorders are headed? The price of this model is a bit steep for that market, I suppose, but higher production volumes or less feature-rich variants could change that pretty quickly.
-
... the issue is what the user's purpose it?
Indeed, a lot of gear debates fall at the first fence by assuming that one particular measure of excellence [like “BOKEH!!!"] is what every camera should be judged by; it makes more sense to me to ask what range of uses a particular tool is good for, and try to judge how well it competes for that usage.
One common goal for some users of video cameras is the ability to quickly move over a fairly wide range of focal lengths, which means offering a lens with a zoom range like 10x or more. Combine that with a desire for portability, which limits the physical size of the lens, and I can see a good case for a format like 1" or not much bigger. Once any bigger format alternative has to keep the bulk of the longer focal length lens needed under control by it having a higher minimum f-stop, hopes for better low light performance and stronger OOF effects go out the window, and a smaller sensor might have some natural advantage for high frame rates, due to shorter signal paths and easier on-chip syncronization.
That said, I wonder how the XC10 will compare to say a Panasonic GH4 with 14-140 lens? The high bit rate options of the XC10 might be an advantage, at least for now.
Note: as both these cameras use a 3840 or 4096 pixel wide crop for video, the effective sensor sizes for video are closer than the 1" vs 4/3" comparison suggests. [UPDATE:] For "per-pixel-peepers" of spec sheets, the pixel pitch comparison is 3.2 microns for the XC10, 3.75 for the GH4, so a 17% linear difference, 37% area, or about a half stop. But let us see how Canon now compares to Sony/Panasonic on photosite tech.!
-
BJL - The Panasonic is a non-runner as a camcorder in Europe because recording time is limited to 30 minutes. For some reason Pana refuses to pay the tariff and this cripples the camera as an institutional camcorder. The direct competitor to the XC10 as an easy to use institutional recorder is probably Sony's AX100, which is also in the sub-$2K class as well as the pro version the PXW-X70. Incidentally the Sony's also use a 1" chip, which might be the same one, but they have low rate 4K codecs, with 4K an option on the pro (!) model, all in the tradition of Sony's salami-sliced marketing techniques. The XC10 looks pretty good, I might actually get one, except day-to-day indoors usage also means high-ISO and here the 1" chip and slowish lens does seem to be a weakness. In 4K video mode the GH4 is unbelievably good for its price, IMHO, and you know that I'm very hard to please :)
Edmund
Indeed, a lot of gear debates fall at the first fence by assuming that one particular measure of excellence [like “BOKEH!!!"] is what every camera should be judged by; it makes more sense to me to ask what range of uses a particular tool is good for, and try to judge how well it competes for that usage.
One common goal for some users of video cameras is the ability to quickly move over a fairly wide range of focal lengths, which means offering a lens with a zoom range like 10x or more. Combine that with a desire for portability, which limits the physical size of the lens, and I can see a good case for a format like 1" or not much bigger. Once any bigger format alternative has to keep the bulk of the longer focal length lens needed under control by it having a higher minimum f-stop, hopes for better low light performance and stronger OOF effects go out the window, and a smaller sensor might have some natural advantage for high frame rates, due to shorter signal paths and easier on-chip syncronization.
That said, I wonder how the XC10 will compare to say a Panasonic GH4 with 14-140 lens? The high bit rate options of the XC10 might be an advantage, at least for now.
Note: as both these cameras use a 3840 or 4096 pixel wide crop for video, the effective sensor sizes for video are closer than the 1" vs 4/3" comparison suggests. [UPDATE:] For "per-pixel-peepers" of spec sheets, the pixel pitch comparison is 3.2 microns for the XC10, 3.75 for the GH4, so a 17% linear difference, 37% area, or about a half stop. But let us see how Canon now compares to Sony/Panasonic on photosite tech.!
-
BJL - The Panasonic is a non-runner as a camcorder in Europe because recording time is limited to 30 minutes.
I often wonder about that: as far as I know, that tax-category inspired 30 minute limit is on each continuous shot, so how often is is that people want uninterrupted shots anywhere close to 30 minutes long -- outside of surveillance and a few "experimental" movies like Andy Warhol's Empire? The longest single shot that I know of in a movie that anyone would actually want to watch is eight minutes, in Robert Altman’s The Player.
-
Many people require long shooting time.
Someone filming a speech,a ceremony or a stage performance, for example.
Someone documenting an industrial process.
News gathering, where the beginning or climax of an event can't be predicted.
etc, etc.
Narrative is just one type of film making. In most instances shots are only seconds long, so your point is correct. But only in this one application.
Michael
-
BJL,
As Michael points out, anyone setting up a camera in a conference or ceremony or speech wants a continuous long run. That is what I call "institutional use".
But in a music video I did recently, a colleague set up two unattended cameras, of which one mounted above the stage to provide another viewpoint. They just ran and were retrieved at the end of the session. There were also two attended cameras running during every take.
Multiple camera work, and the use of unattended cameras is one of the innovations by which modern video practice with untrained camera operators differs from old style film-driven cinematography. In fact one of the reasons why the gopro is so popular is that a lot of people use it for a cheap fixed-focus second viewpoint, sometimes even hotshoed on the main camera. Also, running one miked camera continuously provides a reference for takes and external sound recorders. Syncing tracks is a huge issue nowadays as multiple recorders are invariably in use at different times. Small productions can run without clappers and take notes.
As far as I'm concerned, the XC10 is an institutional and backup camera; a solid camcorder if you will. With the Canon label and the big "4K" sticker stuck on, everyone is going to be buying one, how much they will actually use the XC10 is a different issue. Think of it as the 35mm SLR which every photographer has in his bag even if he is using a Hasselblad as his main camera. Unfortunately, the XC10 does seem under-specced, and looks like a repackaged Sony RX100 zoom subcompact, and I wonder if it's using some version of Sony's bestselling 1" BSI sensor; for all I know, it may well fail on image quality when it hits the pro market.
What I find disturbing is that Canon is now making much of its money now from "good enough" products. In a sense they have no incentive anymore to be at the top of the game. If I were working at Canon, I would be sad to know that people use Canon or buy Canon only if they cannot afford Red or Alexxa, or lack the ability to make the best from the Blackmagic workflow.
Edmund
I often wonder about that: as far as I know, that tax-category inspired 30 minute limit is on each continuous shot, so how often is is that people want uninterrupted shots anywhere close to 30 minutes long -- outside of surveillance and a few "experimental" movies like Andy Warhol's Empire? The longest single shot that I know of in a movie that anyone would actually want to watch is eight minutes, in Robert Altman’s The Player.
-
Thanks Michael and Ronald for the responses; I think I am getting a clearer idea of the niche that the XC10 serves, and that competitors like Panasonic and Sony do not yet -- though they probably can do so quite easily if and when they deem it a profitable direction to go in:
- options like 4K and high bit rates up to 305Mbs without needing an external recorder (thanks to the internal CFast card writer, rather that just SD or Memory Stick)
- ergonomics better suited to video and extended handholding than you get from a still camera form factor like the GH4
- a larger sensor and larger photo-sites than the 2/3" or less of a lot of the competition in its price-range,
- lower cost than video cameras in larger formats like "APS-C" or Super 35mm.
- far less bulk than getting 10x zoom range in larger formats like "APS-C", Super 35mm and 36x24mm.
I wonder if Panasonic will try again with a dedicated 4/3" format video camera, or offer a GH4 variant with the 30 minute shot limit removed.
I wonder if Sony will put an XQD card (its struggling CFast rival) into a camera in this price range.
I sort of hope that the more widely adopted CFast wins the high bit-rate card format war against Sony's XQD, or that a future evolution of SD gets fast enough.
-
If I shot events, or concerts and needed to put cameras on jibs, cranes, arms, trusses and run many multicams, this might be the deal, or as some mentioned if your running long interviews and how to videos.
But this wasn't what the market expected. They expected a gh4 upgrade, probably in aps c or super 35, which is kind of strange because Canon's 70d is an inch away from that if it only had full sensor readout and less color bleed . . . and sound and well a bunch of stuff, but still the 70d is damn close to real good for about 800 bucks.
800 bucks buys you two cables from Arri or RED.
IMO
BC
-
GH4 users were hoping for a Vlog upgrade, for those cases on location when you have uncontrolled highlights that blow out.
This upgrade didn't drop.
Panasonic also released an institutional camera, the DVX200.
After being unique for a year wit the cheapest 4K solution, Pana have a serious problem now because the Samsung NX1 is the new best of class, and Blackmagic are years ahead of them in color science, with the 70D providing more competition as "BC" points out. I think Pana is going to try to squeeze some money out of the market by doing a GH5 with a slightly better sensor with raw out and Vlog, release an anamorphic lens or converter to get some revenue, and they probably have no visibility past the point where that product runs out. Maybe they don't even care because institutional video with fixed-lens camcorders is where the money really is.
Blackmagic is innovating like crazy.
What I find cute in the video market is that you can find interesting products capable of very high image quality in every price range, so unless you have a big lens investment it really doesn't matter what you're using today because something else will come round tomorrow.
I'd like to have a better camera, but frankly I'm not so sure I need a better camera - for now I think I just need to shoot more, I've moved to directing and I need an assistant who can actually pull focus. I aim to do about one project per month or so for a year.
Edmund
If I shot events, or concerts and needed to put cameras on jibs, cranes, arms, trusses and run many multicams, this might be the deal, or as some mentioned if your running long interviews and how to videos.
But this wasn't what the market expected. They expected a gh4 upgrade, probably in aps c or super 35, which is kind of strange because Canon's 70d is an inch away from that if it only had full sensor readout and less color bleed . . . and sound and well a bunch of stuff, but still the 70d is damn close to real good for about 800 bucks.
800 bucks buys you two cables from Arri or RED.
IMO
BC
-
"One first has to find out what the shooters intentions are..."
easier said than done, even for the shooter
-
But this wasn't what the market expected. They expected a gh4 upgrade ...
Well, the new Panasonic DVX200 gets a bit closer, at least by being in 4/3" format (and with a somewhat faster lens: f4.5 at 13x zoom vs f/5.6 at 10x zoom), but the price jumps to about twice what one could do with the more flexible combination of an interchangeable lens still camera with good video (GH4, 7Dii, etc.) and a comparable super-zoom lens. It seems to me that the far greater sales volume possible for "combo-cams" that also appeal to the "mainly stills, but also good video" market creates a big price gap: double the price for that last step in video performance over a combo-cam with same sized sensor.
(Oh, and there was a minor GH4 upgrade; to better support anamorphic lenses.)
-
The combo-cams are not very ergonomic, zillions of settings, no built-in ND, AF inadequate for video, bad or noisy servo zoom etc etc.
So if you're going to do institutional work, without retakes, you really need something closer to a camcorder in ergonomics. And here the camera companies make you pay. The DVX 200 has got exactly one strike against it, the failure to accept supplementary lenses.
Sony seems to have hit the 4K sweet spot with the $10K FS7, which is probably the most flexible acceptably priced product presently on the market. We will see if they make some sort of scaled down version which is cheaper.
Edmund
Well, the new Panasonic DVX200 gets a bit closer, at least by being in 4/3" format (and with a somewhat faster lens: f4.5 at 13x zoom vs f/5.6 at 10x zoom), but the price jumps to about twice what one could do with the more flexible combination of an interchangeable lens still camera with good video (GH4, 7Dii, etc.) and a comparable super-zoom lens. It seems to me that the far greater sales volume possible for "combo-cams" that also appeal to the "mainly stills, but also good video" market creates a big price gap: double the price for that last step in video performance over a combo-cam with same sized sensor.
(Oh, and there was a minor GH4 upgrade; to better support anamorphic lenses.)
-
According to the interview published on Dpreview, there is optical stabilization in 4K, but no digital stabilization.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
J,
Even the EOSHD Canon fanboys are unhappy about the XC10 (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-struck-raw-evf-and-brighter-zoom-from-xc10-for-cost-reasons/)feature/price combination. The fact that it is "worth" its price for institutionals won't make people gripe less if they are unhappy with what they bought.
I agree with you 100% about using pro equipment, and about the FS7 being worth the price of admission. You cannot make me disagree with you here, however hard you try.
I do have some issues about the FS7, but it is not about price, it is about the feature set; I think the output was specced a bit too closely, and the idea of a clip-on pay-me accessory for ProRes and Raw is idiotic, not because you need to pay, but because the added "I've paid" bulk and power requirement makes the camera harder to use. As you point out, just marketing the F5 or F55 cheaper would probably equally have addressed the market needs, at least on paper, but as you also point out we don't understand these things as we don't work in marketing, we only work in advertising :)
My impression is sound is more crucial to me than you -because I do interview and documentary- and sound is becoming an issue; I really wish there were a multichannel recorder with built in wireless reception available, or that the camera did it so you just clip a small short-range lav on *all* the people in a shoot and are ready to go for interview without setting up a zillion of connectors and batteries.
The GH4 has one advantage over the FS7, for my semi-documentary format. It is really small and transportable; it can be shot handheld easily without a rig, and people not involved in the shoot don't realize what I'm doing. As we all know, there are two things a photographer needs - one is a camera that doesn't scare people, the other is a rig that impresses them :)
Edmund
This little Canon will make a decent high end pov camera. Sort of a better gopro. It's ok for drones also, though misses a few marks in no wireless zoom controller, but if your main A cams are Canon this will grade close to your principle footage.
To save time in post is worth the price of admission, if you like the canon "look" which in my experience has a lot of color bleed, but that's just a personal view.
Though now that the gh4 is selling for half price at $1,299 it probably is a better solution for pov and drones with faster lenses.
Edmund,
I think one out of three of your posts mention price.
I don't know how to explain this but in motion or still equipment every time you go up 20% in quality you "usually" go up about 100% in costs (usually more) and another 100% in effort.
I'm amazed Sony came out with the fs7 at it's price point. In fact I think they should have marketed the F5, maybe included the prorezz board and stuck with that camera for a while, but I'm not a camera maker or marketer.
I do know if you took the Sony name off the F5 and put on Arri, nobody would notice, it's that robust and well designed.
The pro world seems to know the F5 because you rarely see them come up used and when they do it's rarely at a discount.
But back to price. There is no free lunch.
Anyone can take a gh4, with a single lav and a medium sized fluid head and shoot some decent footage.
All you need is a hand full of nd filters or a fader, though to make the camera professionally useable and produce 422, you need a decent recorder like odessey, a good cage like wooden camera.
Then that yagh interface for better sound shielding, a boat load of arms, a adapter for a power source, a bunch of goldline batteries, velcro and adapters.
At this stage you'll be into about 7 grand or more plus lenses, so there you go, you have your "cheap" FS7 for about a 0 dollar savings because you can buy an FS7 for 7 grand if you look around.
But price is relative. 5 or so years or so ago, I bought a 5d2, I tried to make a dslr a motion picture camera which it never was meant to be, spent about 5 grand and never used it because I bought two RED 1's and never looked back.
The R1's then were expensive (relatively speaking) but I've used them for 5 years and they've helped turn our studio a very good profit and continue to do so today and are not obsolete.
In fact if I put them in a case and never touched them again, they've earned there keep.
Every camera has a place, including this little Canon and the users that know how to get the best out of it will rave positively, the ones that don't, won't.
In my experience, the best way to go about pro level construction is to go pro (not the "gopro", but go professional). Pro equipment is solid, heavy, meant to run under almost any conditions, is rarely innovative, but always useable and "lasts".
IMO
BC
-
The combo-cams are not very ergonomic, zillions of settings, no built-in ND, AF inadequate for video, bad or noisy servo zoom etc etc.
So if you're going to do institutional work, without retakes, you really need something closer to a camcorder in ergonomics. And here the camera companies make you pay.
I don't know how to explain this but in motion or still equipment every time you go up 20% in quality you "usually" go up about 100% in costs (usually more) and another 100% in effort.
Even the EOSHD Canon fanboys are unhappy about the XC10 (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-struck-raw-evf-and-brighter-zoom-from-xc10-for-cost-reasons/)feature/price combination. The fact that it is "worth" its price for institutionals won't make people gripe less if they are unhappy with what they bought.
These three quotes summarize what I was alluding to: obviously specialized video cameras like the Canon XC10 and Panasonic DVX200 are produced because they have advantages over options based on more "general purpose" tools like the GH4 (one that seems obvious to me is that the lens design needs for video are often quite different than those of stills oriented designs), but at some stage, meeting the the last 10% of one's needs come at a far large price than the first 90%, so predictably people will complain, but the reality is probably that there are vastly more customers who are satisfied by the "90% solution", so the economies of scale require the far fewer customers who need that next 10% to pay dearly for it -- so a lot of them will complain, but then pay up.
On specialized lenses: what happens if and when more lenses designed for professional-level video usage, like that in the DVX200 or XC10, are offered in standard ILC mirrorless system mounts? Maybe a format like "APS-C" is oversized for many such use cases (requiring over-bulky lenses when 10x or more zoom is needed), but dedicated video lenses could be based around a crop to 4K, and so a video mode format around 1" (close to the old 16mm film format) combined with a higher definition still mode.
-
J,
I apologize - I didn't realize you were so heavily invested in sound.
On the other hand, I have the issue of getting things done with a crew of two at most, of which one is the interviewer - me.
I'd like to find a way of getting things done simply. Some sort of easily setup multichannel wireless system would really help. A bundle of wireless mic receivers and a recorder just means a ton of batteries and wires to watch and feed ...Using small cheap lav recorders rather than bothering with xmitter/recievers on everybody may be the way to go.
Edmund
Last Year we delivered 224 minutes of finished dialog video, about 1/2 scripted, the rest interview.
We own and carry 4 seinhauser single band radio lavs, and 2 dual band Audio-Technica radio lavs for a total of 8 people if necessary, though rarely go past 3 subjects.
Even with the sound equipment we almost always use our sound tech and his equipment who runs to a recorder and mixer and also to every camera, usually multi cam, 2 minimum.
The sound tech is almost a deal breaker when we work the bid, though year before last we did KL, Munich, Thailand and Moscow and used our sound equipment, and on a few scenes hired an assistant tech to set up our equipment, straight to camera.
We also record foley sound, or buy it if needed and we have a sound technician that does the final mix of score, foley, dialog from an OMF file.
We rarely worry about the cameras being noticeable, due to the fact that for commerce we have to release every person that is recognizable (even people walking through frame (which our producer is great at securing) and obviously permit and get location releases.
In direction the goal is to get the subjects comfortable, professional subjects or "real" around a camera of any size but that's a long reply.
In regards to the FS7 I know little about it, the c300 II we'll test, same with the F5, though probably at the end of the day, we stay with our three REDs, though I'm not sure if I'd purchase another RED.
BTW: Sony is not the only person to charge extra for prores. I believe Arri charges a time based liscense to capture and deliver prores.
That's just the way it goes and if they can charge for it, they will.
The only issue with the F5 for prores is it limits the camera to 2k, but it does do full readout of the sensor.
The only issue with Sony is there all over the place and the strategy is hard to understand. Remember the $100,000 cinealta can now be bought for $12,000 and the FS7 and F5 are so close in feature sets, it's hard to understand why one is double the price, but Sony is unique in the way they cover about everything.
IMO
BC
-
Everyone wants to get it done simply and by the way, entertaining, beautiful, original, unique, informative, worthy of the viewers time, respectful of the talent, at a cost effective price.
Nothing new about that.
I don't think you have an equipment decision, sound camera, lights. There are plenty of resources, equipment and workflows.
Respectfully, I think firstly you have a business model decision.
IMO
BC
My business model is not free, but so cheap you don't want to know.
There is a new trend here in Paris which is "we don't buy, we don't hire".
The sound guy on the music video explained to me that he usually gets up early and answers a web advert at 7 in the morning, a bit like construction crew used to do, then he's supposed to turn up with his equipment, and he is asked to work for free, but the "client" will pay an equipment-use fee for all his junk -lavs, wireless mikes, instrument mikes, multichannel recorder etc- of around $120 or so for all of it. I think they will also provide catering. For the customer, this is cheaper than rental, and the equipment walks in on its own legs, and packs itself up and goes home in the evening. Also explains why everyone is happy the rental fees are high.
Friend of mine owns a production company, which has several of its own RED cameras; from my discussions with him it seems on a lot of his projects mostly everybody gets to work for free. Of course he already owns all the equipment :(
According to my friend, the idea is that once people get well paid jobs they will hire their friends for real money, but my feeling is that thanks to this race to the bottom all the survival-rate mouth-to-hand projects have turned into free projects.
Basically, unless you have a strong established brand, over here you're now competing with free. Maybe in the US it's different.
In web journalism, it is now roughly the same situation, as you probably know. Content is often supposed to arrive for free eg. Huffington Post. I used to be quite well paid as a web journalist -alas no more. Really, in my younger days people didn't expect to write for free.
Edmund
-
Eronald,
What you've described isn't a 'business model' it's a hobby. Unviable to earn a living from and not a stepping stone into the industry either.
The whole TV/film industry isn't addressing the route into it properly and is just starting to have a serious skills shortage as a result of this sort of stupid cost saving.
-
Yo - long time no chime in.
Ive just bought a Gh4 and Yagh box.
I did consider the little canon but..
not really wide enough IMO
no XLR.
dont know about power input.
Simply the Gh4 has power input and XLR input. The short roll time was an issue... but the GH4 can do long roll times if you add a data recorder. Also it has an app that may or may not be able to trigger it.
Usually I hit long roll times because the camera has to be started before the event
S