I had a few people say to me that the HVX200 is prosumer. Insane....

Just to clear things up here. The HVX200 IS NOT A PROSUMER CAMERA.

Panasonic Professional and it's broadcast devision does not make prosumer gear.

This is a small professional camera apposed to a BiG pro camera; and that shirnking of it's size comes with trade offs but it's not consumer related............................ DVCPRO HD -XLR-P2 technology having the phrase " sumer " connected to it makes me ... L o L..

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

I agree, but...

This little big camera or tiny pro camera or whatever it is, definitely fits into the high end of the "prosumer" or the independent professional price range. So, whether it is something-sumer or not may be debateable, but it sure is price-friendly to "prosumer" level people like myself.

Or maybe the entry level into the "professional" market has just become more affordable.

everyting is professional if you use it to make money.

- ShannonRawls.com

Well said Shannon.

Peter

Exactly Shannon!

"Prosumer" should be on the Banished Words list (http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php). Frankly I hate it.

I totally agree with u guys, i hated the word "prosumer camera"
cheers! that's it.

Prosumer is a label created many years ago by Sony marketing people to first describe their new 8 mm camcorder with pro features. I read an article about it. Sony would later start making the same product in two versions, prosumer and pro. If it was sold as a part of the pro line, it is was not prosumer. To make sure that the pro product is not associated with consumer quality, the connsumer product was refered to as prosumer.

Sony is a company that continues to make basically the same product in both consumer and pro lines. They are sold by different types of dealers, so this differentiation helps increase sales significantly. VX2000 is in their terms prosumer, PD150 pro, HC1 prosumer, A1 pro, FX1 prosumer, Z1 pro, and so on. It is just marketing nonsense, but somewhat it wrongfully carried into the low end pro market segment and now everyone calls the low end pro stuff prosumer.

The prosumer label certainly did not fit Canon XL and GL2 products, which were competing with Sony's pro products but Canon distributed them via their consumer division, which according to Sony terminology made them prosumer.

My thoughts on the camera......I agree with what has been said about the HVX200 image/options being professional. Im sure it would have good production value when used with decent DP, lighting, and sound gear.....but as most of us know having a pro level camera body matters alot when shooting and selling commercail videography services.

Bigger and more expensive looking gear is better and can help you get bigger returns and more referrals. In my opinion the HVX200 has a prosumer body(handy cam) making it my second choice to a SDX900 or DSR450ws.

John

everyting is professional if you use it to make money.

- ShannonRawls.com
WHAT HE SAID..

I wish ppl would get over the prosumer/professional train...

My thoughts on the camera......I agree with what has been said about the HVX200 image/options being professional. Im sure it would have good production value when used with decent DP, lighting, and sound gear.....but as most of us know having a pro level camera body matters alot when shooting and selling commercail videography services.

Bigger and more expensive looking gear is better and can help you get bigger returns and more referrals. In my opinion the HVX200 has a prosumer body(handy cam) making it my second choice to a SDX900 or DSR450ws.

John
Although i agree with u john, i have to say that for corproate work your on the money.. bigger can be seen as better, however for the money, id rather set up 2 HVX's (at the pirice of one SDX900 with change...) as i can easily do multicam shoots and not have to reshoot for my closeups...
thats jsut one example..

Form factor has always been an issue, but at the end of the day, its all about the operator..

Ive had corp jobs where ive had to do sales pitchs for them... i take my Mobile kit with me and lay it all out. From cameras to mics to lighting... Give them an idea of whats involved...

Numerous times ive gotten the deal over ENG cam users simply because i can offer alot more visually with multicam work, on top of that, the image quality is comparable as were still in a SD world (HD is not an issue at this time).
To the large clients content is king.. not wow factor on my tools of choice..

Although i have had many comments made about "wheres that big thing u use to use" (i used to shoot corps with a DSR570) i tell them that the chocie to use a Z1 (for projection work like seminars) or DVX (for web based content) is for discretion and for the fact that i can set up a shot in les than 4 secods flat.. i cant do that with an ENG cam.. i dont think anyone can..

Sure u lose quite abit with the smaller CCDs and the lense issue really isnt an issue (for me) as i never really chopped or changed those with the DSR.. ii just stuck to my 17x Fujinon and that was that.. never really had a need..

Professional? Prosumer.. ?
As far as im concerned, im making money. Im also required to know my tools inside out. If somethign goes wrong, like a mechanic, i SHOULD KNOW whats wrong and know what needs to be done to fix it.
DEALING with these matters are key... from money to business to sales to customer care...
To me, THIS is being professional.

I can use 2 9mm pistols, or i can use a Sniper rifle. At the end of the day, a bullet wil be shot and a target will be hit. With the 2 9mms I at least have a backup and i have the option of messing with the tragectory of my bullet.. with one gun, I only have one shot... Most of the time i hit the target, but i dread the thought of missing the target.... I jsut cant afford that kind of gamble..

Does it make you see the camera different? In the end it's what your expectations are on this camera. Lables are for posers, don't listen to them.
I up shanon on that quote.

Take away the marketing terms and it is a prosumer camera. It's become common. Take the trademark "Pro Line" that Panasonic has for some of their prosumer cameras. There are 47 registered trade marks called Proline right now. Auto supplier Manny Mo and Jack owns one for a line of oil filters. Are those filters what pros use? Not necessarily If you stand in front of the filter section though, odds are good you will grab a filter that says pro filter instead of filter. THE TRANZONIC COMPANIES owns another trademark name for "proline". Is their line any more pro than any other? Well theirs is for tile and grout sponges and wallpaper sponges. Good marketing and packaging, but are these the kinds only pros use. The idea is association. If they call a camera "pro", it means that it's "better" than one that is not. Do pros use DVX100's? Sure, but it's not the first camera someone shooting a network program might choose. Rather it is a small from camera that can serve certain purposes. THE HVX200 is prosumer camera in that it serves the market in between home and all pro. Will pros use them for certain things? Yes, but talk to any professional broadcast sales person and they will tell you this is a prosumer camera. Is that bad? No, where else can you get a camera that can shoot a higher definition camera for $6k? Panasonic refers to this cameras use as for "professional AV use". That makes perfect sense.

Canon is about the only company lest that still puts their XL and HL series cameras under the consumer division name (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=12152). Did it matter? The XL1 was the first camera to start the revolution. No one had to use the term pro for that to happen.

The XL1 did not start the revolution, not by a long shot. That distinction falls squarely on the Sony VX1000. The revolution began when this camera first hit the streets in 1995, two full years before the Canon XL1.

An old news stringer for one of the local networks here once told me, " Sometimes you need the presence of a big camera."

That was about 5 years ago - me with a PD 150 at the time.
This guy was a competitor of mine but we also worked together on many things, and still do.

Ya know what ? - he's still right.
They - the public and most clients can't get past what they are used to seeing on tv ...

So many people have reported this here that I guess it is true, which is a shame. But many have also had good results when they dress their DV cameras up with matteboxes, follow focus, onboard monitors etc., all of which serve a purpose as well as window dressing, so this may be a good solution for a small camera.

I will say that I draw the line at the occasionally reported phenomenon actors responding differently (in a negative way) to the sight of a DV camera. I've never yet experienced this. My inference is that they are responding more to the overall vibe and respect for their process that they are being given, and perhaps that is what is lacking in such productions. If anything, the actors I've worked with on DV jobs are appreciative that it tends to take less time in between setups (compared to full-blown film or HD, for instance).

heh,

Hey Charles,
some of the talent out there oughta be scared with hd -

"How am I looking - not too close - can you defocus a little ..."

I think I'm the one that started this 'prosumer' thing, when I called the HVX as such.
It does have the handicam configuration, after all.

But hey, if you are shooting gorilla style ( no permit ) you are at a huge advantage with a handicam looking thing! However, put a tripod under it, and there come the rent-a-cops.

Q: Is the HVX lens focus via indirect electric servo? That's another 'consumer' trait.

-Les

The XL1 did not start the revolution, not by a long shot. That distinction falls squarely on the Sony VX1000. The revolution began when this camera first hit the streets in 1995, two full years before the Canon XL1.

I'll partially give you that Chris, but it was the XL1 that put a new form of moviemaking in peoples minds.

And don't forget about the TV remote control or the date setting feature, two consumer giveaways.

But really this camera like all prosumer cameras borrows off of professional cameras. Zebras are a perfect example as is memory cards. In fact P2 itself is an offshoot of the professional version that didn't make the killing Panasonic hoped for so they made it a consumer camera with P2 to make back what they never got. The schematics were already drawn, it was simply to put it in a small camera format.

It's a great camera for the money and should make lot of folks very happy.

But really this camera like all prosumer cameras borrows off of professional cameras. Zebras are a perfect example as is memory cards. In fact P2 itself is an offshoot of the professional version that didn't make the killing Panasonic hoped for so they made it a consumer camera with P2 to make back what they never got. The schematics were already drawn, it was simply to put it in a small camera format.
.


Calling the HVX a "consumer" camera certainly doesn't fly.
These days consumer cameras fit in your palm and cost about as much as a P2 card.
Branding tools by category is simply an internal corporate issue.
Anyone who makes a living with them knows that it's all irrelevant.

I liked what Charles said about talent and DV...my experience completely.
Besides, an XL2 with mattebox and Mini35 and cine primes on it is more "pro" looking than an Aton 16mm...whatever that's worth...maybe bragging rights, but hardly transfers to the screen.

If you've produced in multiple formats using similar production techniques then you realize that words like "pro", and "prosumer" are pretty silly and meaningless.

To even apply them to discussions of HD tools like either the Canon or Panasonic makes no sense at all.

My thoughts on the camera......I agree with what has been said about the HVX200 image/options being professional. Im sure it would have good production value when used with decent DP, lighting, and sound gear.....but as most of us know having a pro level camera body matters alot when shooting and selling commercail videography services.

John


I don't get this. I mean if you're talking about the difference between a palm-corder and a reasonable camera maybe, but are you saying that, for instance an Xl1 or XL2 or XL-H1 (all the same basic form factor) have a disadvantage over some larger ENG or other rig?

I've shown up with a 3 or 4 man crew and an XL to clients that were literally dealing with 40 man crews and cranes and 35mm the day before and never had them question anything for a moment.

We've produced a lot in the last two years at an international venue where virtually every week someone from NBC to ESPN is set up with multi-cam coverage and the whole nine yards.

We're always seen as the "filmmakers" who are doing the longer format narrative and documentary side of those stories and events, and it's always with an XL2 and setup that can fit in an Expedition.

I've had the network producers smile knowingly as I've directed this work around them.

Ultimately what matters exclusively is not the form of your camera body but your creative vision and how you execute it and how it's received. In 20 years as a producer and director I have never...not once, had a client or perspective client ask me what kind of camera we were shooting with unless the discussion was video versus film.

While I'm waiting for the HVX200 PDF manual to print, I will come up with suitable phrases.


Either

Small Form Professional HDcams

Small Form Professional HD Camcorders

Small Form Professional High Definition Cameras

Professional Compact HD Camcorders

Professional Compact HDcams

Professional Compact High Definition Cameras

Professional Compact High Definition Camcorders

Compact Professional HD Camcorders

Compact Professional High Definition Systems

Compact Professional High Definition Equipment


If those are prosumer then I guess The Aaton Super16 A-Minima camera is to since in fits in your hand, and it's waaaaaaaaaayyyy smaller then a fully loaded Panavision-Arriflex 35mm camera.

If you don't know this camera take a look here...

Links: http://www.aaton.com/products/film/aminima/aminimafaq.php

http://www.scancam.no/Images/aminima04.jpg

http://www.camex.hu/a-minima.jpg

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/negative/aminimaCamera.jpg

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

While I know you are being somewhat facetious Michael, I think it worth mentioning that with film, the size of the camera has no difference on the image quality it can capture; the A-Minima is capable of producing the same pictures as the largest 16mm camera out there (which in my mind would have to be the Panavision Elaine). But as we know, a 1/3" camera cannot produce the same images as a 2/3" camera.

I am having fun with this, your right!

But, I am serious that these are small form professional cameras; that come with trade offs due to their size. That doesn't make them not Professional.

In the film biz, 16 and s16 would get a bad wrap as the bastard of the film formats. I know DP's who would call 16 a toying around format. Todays vision s16 is awesome.

The 1/3 ccd of 1995 doesn't compare to the 1/3 ccd's technology of 2006. Today's pro 1/3 ccd's are better than early 90's professional 2/3 ccd cameras. So if that 2/3's of early 90's perfomance level was pro then, no reason that this current 1/3ccd performance is not today.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/



While I know you are being somewhat facetious Michael, I think it worth mentioning that with film, the size of the camera has no difference on the image quality it can capture; the A-Minima is capable of producing the same pictures as the largest 16mm camera out there (which in my mind would have to be the Panavision Elaine). But as we know, a 1/3" camera cannot produce the same images as a 2/3" camera.

I write this from Stage 18 at Warner Brothers, on the set of "Gilmore Girls" where I am spending a couple of months; three soundstages full of beautiful sets (and all wifi-equipped, yowsah!) plus a large chunk of backlot, and all are captured on Super 16, as are various other shows including "Scrubs". And then there's films like "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Station Agent", also S16 efforts. Hard to imagine that any DP still thinks it's a toy format.

I write this from Stage 18 at Warner Brothers, on the set of "Gilmore Girls" where I am spending a couple of months; three soundstages full of beautiful sets (and all wifi-equipped, yowsah!) plus a large chunk of backlot, and all are captured on Super 16, as are various other shows including "Scrubs". And then there's films like "Leaving Las Vegas" and "The Station Agent", also S16 efforts. Hard to imagine that any DP still thinks it's a toy format.


What do think the are chances of shows like that shooting in HD in the future Charles?

Hi Charles, I said " would " twice, as in pastence. Long ago. In the 80's s16mm & 16 did get a bad wrap.

Sorry that I did not clarify that better...

pappas

What do think the are chances of shows like that shooting in HD in the future Charles?

I don't have experience as a professional DP, but my personal opinion is, very big!
Because who will notice the difference on a television screen?
You can even get away with well shot DV footage on a television screen.

(I mean of course, BESIDES TECHNICAL GEEKS like the ones going around these boards ;-))

Not true.

Show's shot in film have a pathway into HD syndication. Sitcoms that were shot in ntsc video look very bad in the HD realm. Show's shot on film like Cheers, FamilyTies, Seinfeld, Friends all shot in film can be retransferred and look even better with modern grading technology in the HD realm.

You shoot for the future. The archive; think Library. Presentation technology improves; film for that possibility.
Back in the late 80's & early 90's I sat in on these very discussions in Hollywood among engineers and DP's. Presevering the best and aquiring the best master. Just cause your client can't utilize the HD now, he just might come knocking on your door down the road wanting a better version. It's a lot cheaper than shooting the whole project over to a higher standard. Start as high as your budget will allow, and then work your way down if that is were the final product goes.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/




I don't have experience as a professional DP, but my personal opinion is, very big!
Because who will notice the difference on a television screen?
You can even get away with well shot DV footage on a television screen.




(I mean of course, BESIDES TECHNICAL GEEKS like the ones going around these boards ;-))

Not true.

Show's shot in film have a pathway into HD syndication. Sitcoms that were shot in ntsc video look very bad in the HD realm. Show's shot on film like Cheers, FamilyTies, Seinfeld, Friends all shot in film can be retransferred and look even better with modern grading technology in the HD realm.

You shoot for the future. This archive, think Library. Presentation technology improves, film for that possibility.
Andy Griffith, I Love Lucy, and Dick Van Dyke will STILL go strong in HD.

Thanks Desilu

<<<<(I mean of course, BESIDES TECHNICAL GEEKS like the ones going around these boards ;-))[/quote]
>>>



Not true.

Show's shot in film have a pathway into HD syndication. Sitcoms that were shot in ntsc video look very bad in the HD realm. Show's shot on film like Cheers, FamilyTies, Seinfeld, Friends all shot in film can be retransferred and look even better with modern grading technology in the HD realm.

You shoot for the future. The archive; think Library. Presentation technology improves; film for that possibility.
Back in the late 80's & early 90's I sat in on these very discussions in Hollywood among engineers and DP's. Persevering the best and acquiring the best master. Just cause your client can't utilize the HD now, he just might come knocking on your door down the road wanting a better version. It's a lot cheaper than shooting the whole project over to a higher standard. Start as high as your budget will allow, and then work your way down if that is were the final product goes.



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

But do you think they will keep shooting series on film too, as opposed to HD?
I have my doubts about it, personally. If even filmmakers (and I know, at this moment, not that many of them, but still) are going more and more to HD...

(PS: I know films will be shot on 35mm for a Looooong time, but still...)

<<But do you think they will keep shooting series on film too, as opposed to HD? >>>

Mathieu did you read what you wrote a couple of posts back. We are answering to your statement about DV level quality looking good. Yeah, on a SD tv, not a HD tv. SD is going bye bye, in 15 years SD will be mostly gone from most peoples homes in Major Markets in the USA and abroad. That's what Stephen and I are responding too. Shoot either HD or Film...

No one ever said HD over film or Film over HD.

This is what we were responding too, Below....


Because who will notice the difference on a television screen?You can even get away with well shot DV footage on a television screen.

Yes, I was already afraid your quote was more oriented at that quote from me, so I suspected it, but wasn't sure.
That quote was just meant to say that at an SD television you can get away with even DV, so HD would be surely enough, even for HDTV.
That's what I meant, I didn't want to imply series could or should be shot on regular DV.
It was just to make my point about video versus film.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that.

PS: only now saw that when you quoted me, you let out the HD part, so I oversaw that. My mistake.

There have been quite a few instances of HD being tested on episodic shows and the decision ultimately made to shoot in film as the HD technology is considered not quite ready for primetime in many instances (there are exceptions). When HD cameras can achieve the portability, flexibility and dynamic range of film as we currently know it, things will certainly change, but for now the process is still cumbersome.

I think that cameras such as the Arri D20 and the Genesis are the bridge to an acceptance of HD in the episodic world. Compatibility with existing 35mm lenses and accessories, onboard recording (hard drive and tape drive, respectively) and more robust imaging than the current generation of 2/3" HD cameras will create more interest, once the bugs are worked out.

It's getting there. And it will eventually happen.

I've always had the idea that Panasonic names their profesional gear starting with "AJ" as in "AJ-SPX800" and their consumer gear with "AG" as in "AG-DVC60" Isn't this true??

Nope consumer is PV. AG back in the day was on Industrial/ Professional line. Like the old AG-7500's and AG-6400's etc. Those were NOT consumer. gear...

Here is an AG-7500 & Ag-dvc200............ BTW: My AG-6400 bought in the 80's still works. I needed to watch a tape shot 16yrs ago and it worked......

http://www.dvt.com.au/images/Ag-dvc200.jpg

http://www.geocities.jp/takosankobo/AG1.jpg

http://www.broadcaststore.com/images/model/large/5691.jpg


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

I've always had the idea that Panasonic names their profesional gear starting with "AJ" as in "AJ-SPX800" and their consumer gear with "AG" as in "AG-DVC60" Isn't this true??

Just to put this discussion to rest.

Panasonic Chief Technology Officer Paul Liao stated in TV technology this week while referring to the HVX200:

"When other camcorder makers proposed the HDV format for higher end CONSUMER PRODUCTS, Panasonic choose not to support it...our understanding of CONSUMERS and fundamentals of video imaging told us that the right answers for CONSUMERS was not HDV."

This does not mean TV stations, and major pros can't an will not use the HVX200 when it suits the need, but take away the marketing and these small form cameras are designed for consumer use.

A professional P2 camera would be something like the AJ-spx900.

One hand doesn't know what the other is doing at Panasonic.

Panasonic's published P2 workflow specifies the HVX200 as a news gathering field camera. They've included the news gamma on the camera's presets for a reason.

panasonic can call it whatever they want but ultimately the users will dub it whatever it is to them and most of them will call it a prosumer cam. it's not based on all the great features. prosumer relates directly to price and this camera fits neatly in between low end sony hd consumer cams and high end pro hd cams.

Just to put this discussion to rest.

Panasonic Chief Technology Officer Paul Liao stated in TV technology this week while referring to the HVX200:

"When other camcorder makers proposed the HDV format for higher end CONSUMER PRODUCTS, Panasonic choose not to support it...our understanding of CONSUMERS and fundamentals of video imaging told us that the right answers for CONSUMERS was not HDV."

This does not mean TV stations, and major pros can't an will not use the HVX200 when it suits the need, but take away the marketing and these small form cameras are designed for consumer use.

A professional P2 camera would be something like the AJ-spx900.


Manufacturers don't determine the professional end use of their products, professionals do.

Both the H1 and HVX will be used for film making, commercial work and other paying (professional) work far more than graduation videos.

There's a market full of litle cameras that consumers want to put in their bags and take onvacation and to family events.

Trust me, the HVX and XL-H1 are not the ones their looking at in Best Buy.

"Manufacturers don't determine the professional end use of their products, professionals do."

You are correct but now there are so many wannabe filmmakers out there that marketing by association helps make consumer cameras appear to be pro cameras when they were not designed as such. Any camera with a Tv remote is not my first choice in the professional world. But a s a pro I can tell you It's me that determines what camera and format I use, not a manufacture. It's just sad to see all of the hype over a 1/3 inch camera. It's turning out just as I said, all of these 1/3 inch small form HD cameras are looking to be about equal in overall picture and results just as their Dv counterparts are. you can't squeeze blood from stone. Without a real lens, substantial electronics, and a decent CCD, these cameras are modified consumer cameras aka prosumer. In fact the HVX was on display at the Consumer Electronics Show. As I said it's not a pro camera but whatever Panasonic can do to sell it, consumer or pro they will do. Nothing wrong with that, just sad that folks who can't afford lights or knowledge would pluck down 10k for something that isn't going to do much more for them then the DVX they are selling to get it. See a camera does not make one a pro rather a pro makes a camera shoot well.

This thread, like several others recently, is beyond done. Time to discuss something else,