What camcorder would you buy?

[Greg Allen]

Hey Guys!

I have been shooting with a GH3 in a rig, it's heavy, bulky and not ideal for run and gun. I have been wanting to upgrade for a while now and a camcorder is a better choice for what I am going to be doing. (shooting for a new non-profit org) With that said, the DVX200 has been top on my list of camera choices. I love the features and form factor of this camera. The down side is that shooting 4:2:2 @ 10 bit requires a recorder which tacks on another $1500 and adds bulk which is not ideal for run and gun. It would be fine for documentary work though (aside from the added cost). The other camera I am considering is Sony's PXW-X70. With this camera I loose some features such as the three individual focus rings (since I haven't used a camcorder I'm not sure how much I will need them). It shoots 4:2:2 @ 10 bit internally and it's a small transportable form factor (carry-on). Adding 4K ($499 with only 60mbps?!? WTF Sony?) will allow me to crop and pan in post on a 1080 timeline. Another nice thing about going with Sony is their propitiatory hot shoe will power and transmit audio from their wireless receiver directly into the camera. Cool feature.

Since I am new to shooting video for broadcast I have started to do some research. The BBC's requirements which seem to be the most stringent are located here: http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf "4.2 Video codec
As described by the AS-11 specification (and the UK DPP HD shim), the video essence in the file
must be encoded as AVC Intra Class 100 as defined by SMPTE RP 2027:2011. This equates to an actual
video essence data rate of approximately 113Mbits/s. AS-11 gives full technical details of how the file should
be constructed." If they need a 113Mbits/s then that rules out the X70. PBS on the other hand has a completely different set of requirements, anemic in comparison. Audio requirements are different as well between 16bit/48k to 24bit/48k. This is not a big deal as I can alter this in ProTools or Cubase Pro if needed.

At this point I am lost. Besides the confusion of what format I need to be shooting in, many of the higher priced camcorders have been around for a while (3 years or more). They have low bit rates 28Mbps, 16 bit audio, use smaller sensors or $280 media cards that shoot for only 15 minutes. Also, I have noticed that the video quality is not up to the newer lower cost versions out there. While all the high end features are nice its the video quality that matters in the end. All the bells and whistles on a camera can't fix a soft image from an older sensor. (I know sharpen in post) Seriously though, the current offerings in $4-6k range (except the DVX200) are sort of off the table. Maybe, some new camcorders will be on the market in January/February which is when I am planning the purchase.

Unfortunately there are no stores that sell this type of equipment locally so I really rely on the knowledgeable people in forums like this to provide constructive advice. With that said maybe you guys can guide me in the right direction.

Cheers,
Greg

[Noa Put]

The BBC's requirements which seem to be the most stringent

Do you have plans to deliver to the BBC?

Have you considered the jvc-gy-ls300?

[Steve Burkett]

Quick look through the BBC guidelines. Its clear they don't accept DSLR's unless for certain shots and under approval by them - comes under single sensor cameras. 100mbps seems to be the minimum recording for HD. I recall reading a 2012 list of requirements from them and they mentioned certain cameras were acceptable as long as an external recorder was used. I think any $4500 camera would need an external recorder to get broadcast quality material. However what is consider acceptable will differ depending on who is broadcasting. Other smaller channels may have less strict guidelines.

You want a proper Broadcast quality camera, then look here:

Buy - Sony PXW-X500 (PXWX500) XDCAM Shoulder mount Camcorder with Three 2/3-inch HyperHAD FX Full HD CCD Sensors and Multi-Format Recording

This is what you'd be expected to film with to be taken seriously in the BBC world and would be considered a true professional camera. Something like the Panasonic DVX200 is more for event filming, though again with an external recorder could meet the BBC guidelines. However this is just the BBC's guidelines; others as I said could be more forgiving.

[Noa Put]

Why are the BBC guidelines so important if you don't plan to deliver to the BBC? Or are these guidelines used as a general rule by other broadcast companies?

[Greg Allen]

Noa,

Yes, in the near future I would like to be able to submit content to the BBC in which case I need to meet their requirements. From the little bit of poking around I have done thus far they seem to have the highest minimum standard requirements. So if I can meet them I should be covered. :) Yeah I looked at the JVC pretty hard. However, I'm not sure what lens I would put on it that would give run and capabilities.

Steve,

Unfortunately, I don't have $20,000 laying around for a camera that may or may not pay for itself. It really is unfortunate they charge so much for the gear, targeting corporations rather than the independents. Maybe the DVX200 with an Atomos Shogun is what I need to get in the door. If the money starts coming in then I can shell out the big bucks....

[Noa Put]

Well that makes a difference then, if you want to play with the big boys then you need to have the right toys :) But if you don' t have the budget yet buy whatever gets you going, or you might rent for that one time job that does require specific equipment. You might want to ask Paul Anderegg for advice on this forum, I know he shoots news with a Sony pmw x70.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

Noa,

Yes, in the near future I would like to be able to submit content to the BBC in which case I need to meet their requirements.
Steve,

Unfortunately, I don't have $20,000 laying around for a camera that may or may not pay for itself. It really is unfortunate they charge so much for the gear, targeting corporations rather than the independents. Maybe the DVX200 with an Atomos Shogun is what I need to get in the door. If the money starts coming in then I can shell out the big bucks....

What sort of content are you planning to sell to the BBC? Bare in mind not all BBC programmes are made in house. Other production companies are employed to deliver content and they usually have a larger budget and be expected to confirm with BBC guidelines. So they're in place more for bigger guns than a single videographer. When it does come to individuals selling content, I suppose the standards will depend on what the content is. For news broadcasts it will be less than say a drama, but are you really planning to offer the latter. Ultimately if you can deliver HD at 100mbps with 4:2:2 colour and a picture with no artifacts, moiré and aliasing then you're on the right track. For sub $5000, that is going to mean an external recorder. Unless anyone knows of a camera that offers the above internally. However such a miracle would I'm sure be well known by now.

[Adam Grunseth]

A lot, I think, depends on exactly what "run-and-gun" means to you. Coming from a TV news background, I am used to a proper ENG camera on my shoulder with a wireless mic system. Any kind of handheld camera, especially one without a proper ENG lens, isn't what I am used to for run-and-gun shooting.

However, I recently purchased a Canon C100 camera. Thought it is quite a bit different from the ENG form factor that I'm used to, I have put together a decent kit for documentary work that I think might fit your criteria.

First, the camera. A Canon C100 without the dual pixel autofocus. I never trust autofocus, none of the ENG cameras I used ever had autofocus, so this feature wasn't important to me.

Next, a used Sigma f2.8 18-50mm EX DC lens. With a constant aperture throughout its zoom range, it is a great lens for video.

Since the lens doesn't have stabilization, and the camera's form factor doesn't make using it on the shoulder possible without all sorts of other gear, I found a monopod an absolute necessity. I've been reasonably happy with the Bogen MVM500A.

To record network TV broadcast specs, you will need an external recorder. I found the Atomos Ninja 2 is a great option for this.

The reason broadcasters have the specifications they do isn't just to ensure the incoming video quality is good enough, but that the video will stand up to all the pipeline they put it through. Broadcasters do terrible, horrible things to their programs before they are sent out to local stations and re-transmitted. Part of the broadcast specifications are to make sure that the program will still look good after it is subjected to this treatment.

So, the price for all this is-

$3000 for the camera
$200 for the lens
$240 for the monopod
$300 for the recorder

That brings you to a total of $3,740, well under your $4,500 goal. You won't need a huge rig, and you'll have money left over for a mic system and media. You'll be able to meet most broadcast specs, and your video will look fantastic because the C100 really is a great little camera.

Good luck!

[Greg Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Ultimately if you can deliver HD at 100mbps with 4:2:2 colour and a picture with no artifacts, moiré and aliasing then you're on the right track. For sub $5000, that is going to mean an external recorder. Unless anyone knows of a camera that offers the above internally. However such a miracle would I'm sure be well known by now.

The Panasonic AJ-PX270 records 4:2:2 AVC-Intra at up to 200 Mbps (24p/30p) or 100 Mbps (60p) and costs $4150 at B&H after the current $1000 rebate. The downside is that you need relatively expensive microP2 media for the higher data rates.

It's an excellent camera that meets just about everybody's broadcast specs, although some will be put off by the 1/3" sensors.

- Greg

[Greg Allen]

Thanks guys I am really soaking up the info and following up on everything you have mentioned. One thing that I didn't realize before a few minutes ago is what an external recorder actually did. I understood that it recorded in an enhanced codec but had no idea that it also could bring up the bit rate to 220Mbps. Wow! That just changed the game... From what I understand, so long as the HDMI out on the camera provides 1080 then the recorder can record that at 1920x1080, 60p, 422 PRO RES 10bit color at up to 220 Mbps... Doesn't that pretty much make any camera broadcast capable? Put one on my GH3 = broadcast quality. If this is the case I can just find a camera with the features I want and forgo the internal recordings. o.0

[Greg Allen]

Hypothetical question... If I was to purchase the Sony HXR-NX3/1 NXCAM which is a 3, 1/2" sensor at 28Mbps and use it with the Atomos record at 100Mbps, wouldn't that increase the image quality tremendously since it is recording more detail?

[Noa Put]

The main difference would be that these higher bitrate codecs would cause less artifacts or macroblocking with lots of fine detail and motion and the codec would not fall apart so easily when you push the image during grading. From a normal viewing distance you most likely won't be able to tell both low and high bitrate images apart unless you are shooting something that would stress the codec.

[Adam Grunseth]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

Thanks guys I am really soaking up the info and following up on everything you have mentioned. One thing that I didn't realize before a few minutes ago is what an external recorder actually did. I understood that it recorded in an enhanced codec but had no idea that it also could bring up the bit rate to 220Mbps. Wow! That just changed the game... From what I understand, so long as the HDMI out on the camera provides 1080 then the recorder can record that at 1920x1080, 60p, 422 PRO RES 10bit color at up to 220 Mbps... Doesn't that pretty much make any camera broadcast capable? Put one on my GH3 = broadcast quality. If this is the case I can just find a camera with the features I want and forgo the internal recordings. o.0

For the most part, yes, but you really have to make sure the camera is outputting a live broadcast compliant signal. For example, the C100 which I suggested, only outputs a 4:2:2 8-bit live image. Even if you record 422 prores 10bit, since the camera is only outputting an 8bit signal, you would get no extra benefit from recording using a 10bit codec, though you would gain a 4:2:2 image. So you really have to look at what the camera is sending out for its live signal.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I believe the Canon xf300 is on the BBC HD approved list and you can get it now for 4K so within Greg's budget, the c300 is out of the question I think as you have to factor lenses in as well and that will bring it quickly above 4,5K.

He didn't mention lenses so I assumed that was on top. However... I have the answer still. ;)

What he should do is buy a CANADIAN C300 then... With our dollar at 73% that makes one here around $3200usd! (actually a friend of mine just sold his for $5k cdn, I should have bought it). That leaves enough money for a 24-105L IS, batteries and memory!

However, I do like your JVC LS300 idea, that's nearly perfect. Plus, add a Speedbooster and a 24-105L and you're pretty close to spot on budget (buying used of course).

[Bryan Cantwell]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

The reason broadcasters have the specifications they do isn't just to ensure the incoming video quality is good enough, but that the video will stand up to all the pipeline they put it through. Broadcasters do terrible, horrible things to their programs before they are sent out to local stations and re-transmitted. Part of the broadcast specifications are to make sure that the program will still look good after it is subjected to this treatment.

This. This right here is exactly why broadcast standards exist.

You would cry if you knew exactly what they were going to do to your video before it hits air.