HVX-200

[Charles Papert]

Hmm. Guess it depends what you are used to. To me the Mini35 with DVX100 or XL2 (the two configurations I've flown it) felt like an SR3, not a bad mass. This was with a Dionic 90 on the back rather than the camcorder battery, which I'm sure helped the weight distribution. And it wasn't any longer than a LWII.

 

In any event--I'm not sure I can agree with the idea that a higher CG is preferable for any camera.

[Steve Fracol SOC]

Well, I think we all know the answer to this one...it's a mature medium against an immature one that is improving rapidly. 5 years from now we'll be looking back on this interim period as the "bad old days" of digital acquisition, and not long after that we'll look back at film and wonder why we liked it so much. Flash drives shouldn't be dumping during takes of course, but then again there's always film jams, perf damage, flashing, scratches, static electricity and any number of other things that can screw up a perfectly operated take on film (ironically, much of which can now be fixed when the film is scanned to digital).

 

As far as how much we are expected to know or learn about each system that comes along, that's a personal choice just like many others that we all make in the aim of being "valuable". Some operators like to make suggestions on set, others like to keep their mouth shut and do what they are told (and most of us tailor it to different jobs and working styles of the director and DP).

 

There are many things that are less than desirable about digital acquisition at present. Certainly having to redo a take because of a capture issue is one of them (undoubtedly the future lies in simultaneous redundant recording). Awkward ergonomics, cables, interference issues etc. abound. The end game is that before too long we will be seeing cameras that will make even the smallest 35mm camera seem bloated, with capacities that not only meet but exceed the "status quo". The Steadicam of the future is more likely to resemble a Flyer than an Ultra (PRO/Ultimate/etc), although there will likely be "large format" work that will require the big rig (3D, IMAX-sized sensor etc). Who knows, maybe GB's 70's-era vision that the Steadicam will be replaced by some sort of black box may finally come to pass, as one imagines a camera that largely consists of lens and battery with next-generation image stabilization that can smooth out a human being's motion at full run.

 

Remember that just a few years ago there were many folks in our industry who fully believed that HD would "never happen in my lifetime". Obviously it's here to stay, and Moore's Law will see to it that in the length of time that the average film camera had its run before being replaced by the next model, digital motion picture acquisition will improve many times over.

 

GENTS & LADIES,

 

YOU SHOULD READ THESE WORDS FROM CHARLES AND PAY ATTENTION.

 

His words are as well put as anything I have read about the future of our business. Chas is like Moses speaking to his people here. Take it for what it is. Like it or not...it is here to stay. I suggest you learn all you can if you ever plan to move up the food chain and become a DP some day. Even if you don't want to move up it pays to know.

 

I also hate working with small cameras most of the time but they do have a place. I don?t mind the record format as much as I hate the lens system. The problem the way I see it is that producers do not always put them on the right jobs. To often the small cameras end up where at least a CineAlta, VariCam or even an HDX 900 should have been or even a Super 16 camera.

 

I have been in the business since 1986. I have seen everything from the CP 16, 1" tape, 3/4", early Beta, Beta SP, D Beta all the way up to where it is now. I fell into film somewhere in the middle of that for about 8-10 years. (and yes, those film years were GREAT!)

 

I did manage to start shooting HD on occasion when the Sony 700 and 750 (1080 60i) came out just before the 24p stuff. 24p HD is here to stay and it is only going to improve?. yes, even those little cameras. I still prefer film but I have taken it upon myself to learn as much as possible about each new format. It is not easy but I see it as my job if I want to improve my skills and be knowledgeable when a DP or producer calls me. It never hurts to say, ?P2 HD format, yes, I have seen it and I understand how it works.?

 

THIS GOES FOR ALL OF US?.Go to a rental house and learn about the new cameras and their workflow. Workflow is very important to understand. And I also suggest you learn what video outputs all these new little cameras have on them so you can figure out how to hit your monitor of choice for your Steadicam. All these new cameras have all sorts of outputs. And check the weight of each camera as well as the Mini 35, Movie Tube, etc.. Figure out how much weight you might have to add. The little cameras are getting heavier and your going to find that you do not need your entire weight cage like we did when we flew a Sony PD 150. It is in your best interest to do so.

 

Sorry for continuing to beat this topic into the ground but I felt the urge to speak. I was moved by Charles words.

 

Erwin, this is not at all meant to be a slam at you, I totally respect you and what your point is. So please do not take it that way.

 

My .02

 

Best,

 

Steve Fracol, SOC

[Thomas English]

I dwelled on buying an HD camera for a while, looked at PStechniks and HVX s, thought about these JVC200 s / 250 considered the xl HD s, got offered a great deal on a varicam and dreamt of the RED s and Silicon imagings.

 

Finally I just bought an arri sr2, as charles said there is a strong possibility that we won t be using film in 7 years but my sr2 will last until then and there will be 2 or 3 generations of broadcast camera s until then. My sr2 is an ideal weight on my rig and it get s me the jobs I want to do.

 

The movietube and HVX is great but watch going through doorways and under polecats! it s high! a tall system to clip. I find the image a little creamy.

 

PS techniks is great but feels quite long and funny balance sometimes. Nothing a good steadicam op can t overcome.

 

I have been having a thought over the last few weeks. For the last few years in promo s and comercials smaller and lower grade cameras having been being used this is mostly because the new medium is computer streaming on tiny little screens. I think there will be a resurgents in the next few years of using the best quality camera affordable as plasma and massive LCD screens drop in price and computer s become fully intergrated into home entertainment systems and thus be using quality screens. It may become the norm to watch TV on a 4ft plasma screen. You ever seen a reality TV (DV) program on a plasma.... man.. it looks awful!

[Lars Erik]

I've worked 10 years with video. 18 months ago I started with Steadicam. I must say I'm a bit baffled about how well everybody thinks the HVX-200 is. First of all, it doesn't even have a removable lens. Even though you choose a Pro35 adaptor, you're still shooting through a pretty shitty lens, compared to other lenses in the SD/HD market. And what kind of camera has Panasonic made anyway? It's sure as hell not a shoulder camera, and it's too heavy to be anything like it's little brother the DVX-100. This camera is heavy (for 1/3") , specially with the wide angle adaptor on it. Personally, I think these cameras are the results of producers trying to squeeze every little buck out of a production. They want to save money, so they can put more money into their pockets. And the focus ring, dude, it doesn't even stop. It just goes round and round, like a never ending nightmare. I always turn down DP/camera operator jobs with 1/3" cameras. Because in most cases, when I try and find out why they want to shoot on a camera like this, it's an economical reason.

 

And we must be realistic. Panasonic and Sony will NEVER make these cameras as good as their top-of-the-line full size HD cameras. You never asked yourself why the focus ring doesn't stop? Why you can't get a number reading when taking white balance, it just says; "white balance ok". They can easily add this function to the camera. This bottoms down to the fact that Sony and Panasonic aren't prepared to let these cameras outcompete the 950 and the SDX-HD and the likes. But digital is the future I believe. Not just as small as these cameras. Just imagine going handheld with it. You will have very little control of your movements. That's what I think is one of the most frustrating things about these cameras.

 

Steadicam related:

 

Steadicam jobs are of another matter. If the DP wants to shoot on this camera. Then fine. It's his/hers choice. I've just started a documentary series with the HVX-200. And done shoots with other 1/3" cameras. I use a weight plate like Erwin. And I always think it's more difficult getting smooth shots with the smaller cameras. Have you guys experienced the same thing? Any good tips, besides training. :rolleyes: My shots on 2/3" cams and film look very good, according to the DP's I've asked.

 

LE

[EJ Sadler]

I'm a camera operator, you shouldn't have to need a degree in engineering to operate a camera... right or am I wrong?

 

Engineering degree? No. But, I would strongly suggest getting comfortable with fully electronic cameras, menu systems and operating paradigms. Although digital cinema cameras will retain some cinema concepts, there will be no shortage of video concepts required to understand the camera. Even with an AC, you'll never lose a job because you knew too much.

 

Like it or not, given the pace of digital image capture advances, film is not the future. I suspect that digital acquisition adoption will occur at a exponential rate like it did in the still world, you're going to wake up one day and all of sudden every job you get is going to be digital.

 

Not too long from now the heaviest part of the camera is more than likely going to be the glass.

[Kevin Mueller]

This is certainly an industry in transition.

 

The same transition that has already happened in the still photography industry and it may be helpful to look at similar industries that have been down this road already.

 

I've been in the advertising industry as a business owner for 13 years. In that time I've hired the services of many top rate still photographers spanning the transition from film to digital. Sadly, many of the best photographers we used in the film days, (only 5 or 6 years ago) are either struggling or out of business all together. The ones that are still successful were early adopters of digital acquisition technology. It was not a smooth evolution by any means. The earlier high-end digital cameras costing $30,000 were roughly the image quality of today's CONSUMER digital SLR. It also required established film photographers to develop a completely new vocabulary and technical expertise in producing images.

 

The same complaints about image quality, equipment, technical challenges, the fact that it didn't measure up to the quality of film were all daily topics of frustration and professional conversation. At the same time, their clients were demanding digital delivery of images and long-standing, loyal relationships were broken in the interest of new, talented, technically adept photographers who were able to deliver digitally. Digital images made their clients lives easier and opened many other possibilities for how those images were used.

 

The clients - or end--users - not the photographers, drove the transition of the industry through the demand for a completely digital workflow because it made their jobs easier. The ones that adapted survived and even thrived. The ones that didn't were replaced.

 

Today, virtually all still photography is digital and the the photographers that used to be film-based can't imagine going back to those days.

 

The photographers that saw the direction of the industry and were willing to adapt early-on had the advantage of learning this technology as it developed. Not paying catch-up on a business level or technical level after the bugs had been worked out of the equipment.

 

It all sounds so similar to the arguments and frustrations I hear in this industry regarding film / tape-based acquisition vs. digital or P2, but in a few short years, no one will want to go back to dealing with film or even want to lug around a 50 pound video camera that records to tape. The cameras will get better and smaller and less expensive. And with that, they will become more accessible to current competitors as well as a whole new crop of competition that is adept at the digital side of things (unforunately with varying levels of visual skill) ready to eat your lunch for you.

 

The technology isn't quite there yet on all levels in the video industry but it will be - sooner rather than later. Better to learn it now and grow with it rather than climb the mountain later.

[Dave Wowchuk]

Erwin: did you use the SD out of the camera for monitoring, or did you use something else?

 

I'd like to know what the quality of the SD output is (for a Steadicam monitor.) I've heard that the image isn't that great (SD) unless your rig has been wired with analog inputs (HD).

 

Dave

[Erwin Landau]

Dave,

 

I used the regular video out (Yellow RCA) Looked nice on my TB-6. Was okay. I was able to frame. Also if you attach the special HD cable to view a direct HD feed from the Camera, the RCA plug is disabled...

 

Erwin