Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

Where are you located and what program are you selling to?

In the United States, most stations don't have technical guidelines other than the broadcast-safe guidelines that you set in Post, and don't have anything to do with your camera.

Unless the station is paying for your camera or you see a lot of this work in your future, you should use what you've got. In general a higher bitrate, INTRA-frame codec will hold up better to the compression and abuse that broadcast subjects it to. Your 7D doesn't fall into that category, but will be totally workable.

If you're going to rent anyway, why not go with a high-end Panasonic, which you should be familiar with since you shoot with an HVX-200?

camera for HD broadcast?
 

I am used to shooting on my Canon 7D. For dvds.
I also have a Panasonic HVX-200.
I will be shooting a commercial this month for broadcast. In HD.
Can somebody suggest a camera that is dependable for television HD broadcast as the end use?
I can rent a camera if need be.
Also, will footage on the 7D for example, broadcast well enough for B-roll, etc.?
Thanks.
David

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

David, commercials usually shoot in the highest quality the production can afford. Are you in charge of the budget or has someone set it for you? Since you are comfortable with the 7D you might want to rent a Canon c300 as that has same size sensor but a much better recording capability. You can go higher quality and cost but it really depends on your budget. I have cut together footage from my p2 HPX 2000, HPX 250 and Canon 7D on projects and the optical characteristics of the sensors is more obvious a difference than the recording compression differences but both are visible. Theses days almost anything goes as long as the final product is delivered properly

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

thanks for the info.
I am in Los Angeles.
I will check out the c300.
My budget is not that large but I may be able to rent something bigger for a day to shoot most of the footage (besides the B roll stuff).
So in that regard, should I go with a higher end Panasonic? Red? Black Magic?
Again, I understand at some point it is preference. And that ultimately I can use any of the above, but I am just looking for one that may be better broadcast friendly in terms of the codec it records in, color depth, etc.

Again, thanks for all the info and I am taking any further suggestions. Thank you.

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

High-end Panasoic technically has a better codec than high-end Canon, but you will probably far prefer the Canon's imagery at a similar price.

The Blackmagic doesn't really make sense unless your'e ready to do a lot of grading. And even then, it might not make sense unless you're planning to shoot in raw.

If you budget for a Red, budget for a good tech, maybe from the rental house, to help you on set.

Overall, I think Daniel's advice sounds the best. You will have an easier time matching the C300 with the 7D than with other options, and you will already be familiar with the way it works more or less, which is worth a lot unless you plan on hiring an experienced operator.

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

Panasonic HPX2700's are selling for around $6000 on eBay, lots of used 2/3" lens options available, proven camera, format, and quality.

Paul;

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

The Panasonic HPX2700 is not a full HD camera though.. I would not get one of those..

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

It's a very economical camera for it's picture quality......will kill many full raster 1080p "full HD" cameras. :-)

Paul

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

The best camera for broadcast. Hoo boy, that's a tough one.
Because there are so many different variables into what makes a camera "broadcast" capable.

To be safe, get a camera that has at least a 50Mb, 4:2:2 codec. Both SDI and HDMI out is desirable, and if you plan on ever doing multi-camera shoots, a Timecode In/Our port is a necessity.
But I've done many broadcast shoots where we used 35Mb, 4:2:0 codecs and the producers were completely satisfied. I've even done AVCHD and HDV shoots for national broadcast. I've also done several broadcast shoots using the Canon 5D and I'm pretty sure that camera's codec isn't quite up to broadcast standards.

I do notice that the trend for broadcast shoots is to go with larger sensor cameras. The C300 is very popular in the broadcast world. My friend has the C300 and gets a lot of work, but he still gets plenty of jobs with his old workhorse Sony F800. Another friend has the PMW350, but he recently bought a C300 because producers stopped asking for the 350.

If I were to buy a new camera, I'd go for the Sony FS7. I think that's going to be a camera that lots of producers will be happy with. It checks all the boxes - good codec, large S35 sensor, SDI, HDMI, Timecode (with adapter), good to shoulder mount - and can even do 4K, if needed. All for a great price. (There's rumors of a cheaper E-mount camera coming from Sony, so stay tuned.)

But there's plenty of cheaper cameras that would be good to own. And don't be afraid to buy used, or demo units.

Re: camera for HD broadcast?
 

That needs a ton of qualifications, especially regarding the Intra-frame codec. In general, an INTER- frame codec will perform better *at the same bitrate* than an INTRA- frame type of the same basic type. How much better will depend on the subject material and a host of other factors, but in general a figure of about 2-3x is generally taken as reasonable.

If your second sentence is then referring to AVC-Intra 100 versus XDCAM 422, then it's not true - the two are generally reckoned to be on a par *OVERALL* in terms of sheer quality, and both considered fully acceptable for normal broadcast acquisition. That's not just my opinion - the EBU did some stringent tests a few years back and that was their conclusion. It's because of the inherent inter v intra advantage that this is possible for XDCAM 422, in spite of only half the data rate.

That's not to say any inter frame codec is always then necessarily a better one to use, and intra-frame codecs can be more "edit-friendly" - but you can always use one for acquisition, and transcode for editing..... The big advantage of XDCAM422 for acquisition over AVC-Intra 100 is down to the datarate - you need half as much memory, and the lower speeds mean it can be cheaper - and this for no quality penalty.

To pick up on what Glen says, then in the UK XDCAM 35Mbs seems to actually be PREFERRED for broadcast work in the news etc field. Lower bitrate still, and means standard SD cards can be used - cheap enough to be treated as tape.

Tend to mostly agree with Glen's other points and I'd also say think hard about a C300 or the FS7. The former may suit if you are really used to DSLR type ergonomics, the latter has a lot more future proofing going for it - 4K being just the most obvious.