Betacam versus HDV?
 

I'm plan to buy a camera, so I must make a lot of choices. I also have some questions for you.
I have to choose between a Betacam or a HDV miniDV camera. The Digital Betacam (SX) is very solid, and have a nice color picture. But the Sony Z5 have HDV, so it is higher resolution with more detail. But if i compare a HDV Sony Z5 signal, with a Betacam SX video, I see that the SX have better color, and more crispy signal... but the hdv have higher resolution and is newer.

Can somebody tell me the difference between the Betacam SX, and Digital Betacam? Is there quality difference?
What is better, a Digital Betacam (SX) camera with good color, and DOF, or a HDV camera like a sony Z5?

What is your final delivery output... standard definition or high definition?

BetaSX was primarily the crossover format from BetaSP/Digibeta to HDCAM and XDCAM HD. It's pretty much a dead end format because Sony is moving away from tape formats at a high rate of speed. SX is also Standard Def only and in an HD world it's a dinosaur. SX also found limited penetration into the broadcast market and was popular with primarily news operations. The Z5 is probably a better choice because it can shoot HD and SD in different rates and formats (something SX can't do). If you can spend the money to move up to the F335 or above that would be a better choice than the Z5.

Differences in Digibeta and SX are primarily sampling rates and compression types.

It depends how quickly Belgium is planning to go over to HD. In the UK Beta SX tends to be mostly used for news while programmes are either shot on DVCAM or Digi Beta depending on their budget.

It really depends on the type of productions you're planning to shoot and if they mostly use the smaller 1/3" cameras or 2/3" cameras. HDV mightn't be acceptable to EU broadcasters as the main camera on most HD productions - the PDW 700 appears to be the lowest spec XDCAM HD model that meets the HD standard.

It really comes down to your market and how quickly you can pay back the investment. However, I suspect the Z5 will be easier to sell once you want to move on. If you're going for a 2/3" beta format I'd go for Digital Betacam over SX; you'd then stand a chance of selling the camera to someone in the many countries that won't be going HD for a long time.

I dont know which format i want. I only want to know what is the best option. So i must make a choice between a Digital betacam, and HDV. Programs shooted with a big betacam looks much better than programs filmed by handheld HDV. But in HDV you can really see the difference between a HDCAM, and Z5. So if i compare the HDV with the Digital betacam video signal, the digital betacam looks more solid/stable, and more colorful.

I would advise against BetaSX solely because the format is not REALLY being actively supported anymore. For a similar "big box" feel with better than HDV images, look at the Sony XDCam HD stuff, the disc based, not the EX, if you're looking for true shoulder camera operability. XDCam EX certainly competes with (if not improves upon) the disc based XDCam but isn't available in a shoulder camera yet UNLESS you count the new JVC, which has 1/3" chips, not 1/2 or 2/3".

The new 700 series XDCam HD422 camera MAY be what you're looking for: 2/3", your choice of pro lenses, true shoulder cam. Just be advised that the Sony EX3 is producing VERY comparable images at a fraction of the price.

The compression used in DigiBeta is Intraframe compressed, like DV. SX is MPEG-2 interframe compressed, like HDV.

Check out: Betacam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMHO, SX was very good at ENG but doesn't hold up (in MY experience - there is another forum member on here that has had great success with SX as a production format) as well as DigiBeta in a production environment.

I didn't know that Shaun, thanks!

As for EX3 producing very similar images to PDW700 at a fraction of the price, I still don't buy that. The clue is in the statement itself - why would a camera a fraction of the price be able to produce similar images, it just doesn't make sense, there must be some corners cut.

I've got EX3 and 700 here with me now, and while I agree that in a still image the EX3 does look very good (plus handles nice, goes easily into overcranking too), on moving shots there are definitely some issues. I'm noticing now more in vertical moves (like a bird plunging downwards to land). Every now and then it just gets the jitters.

Can't stand the stupid little menu select button either!

Steve

You sure do know how to make a guy jealous!!!

Actually, I'm glad to hear that there are still reasons to buy the 700 BESIDES the shoulder mount. It's in my 3 year plan (it was in my 18 month plan, but the new JVC's are coming out at very reasonable prices and most of my work is STILL destined for DVD or the web so I'll save my money for another year and a half until I can buy a kitted out 700, or whatever it's successor is...)

From what I've seen, the EX3 like every other high-end camera, its performance is highly dependent on the person operating it.

The best option depends on who your clients are or will be and what format(s) they prefer. You are the best judge of that. However you must keep in mind that SD (Digibeta) is the past and HD (XDCAM HD, HDV are the present). As mentioned before Sony is moving away from it's tape formats as fast as it can and Digibeta will soon be problematic when it comes to repair, parts and expense of upkeep.