Okay, seriously, I'm getting irritated that camera manufacturers haven't made any progress in imager quality/size in the past several years. I don't understand why increasing the imager by one size more than quadruples the cost of a camera. I like small format cameras, but the small size of the imager is again starting to be a problem now that these tiny chips are being cut up into so many pieces for HD.

Here is why it is bogus:

I just bought a digital camera with a 1/1.7" CCD which is larger than a 1/2" CCD and the whole package cost $300 including a gigabyte of memory. The low-light sensitivity is similar to the VX2000 I recently sold. While I agree that the video quality is nowhere near the same, some of that is due to the extreme compression. If we start at $300 for the cost of a 1/2" CCD, it should cost well under a thousand dollars extra to upgrade a 1/3" came to 1/2". These chips are being created in vast quantities for low dollars and this is nothing new.

I can only conclude that the video camera manufacturers are artificially fixing prices into four brackets centered around ~1/4", 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" chips. I don't understand why less-expensive small form-factor cameras can not be outfitted with larger chips except for all the companies agreeing not to compete in an area where serious image quality enhancements would be seen.

I'm excited about the new cameras coming about, but I think it is nonsensical to forbid smaller cameras to have decent-sized imagers.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Oh boy... I dont, for the life of me, understand why electronics get this rap and not every other product! Why does a Rolex cost more than a Timex? They are the same size, both tell time the same. Why does a Porsche cost more than a Ford Festiva? Both are made from metal, plastic and rubber. Even among the same brands there are different "luxury" options. You want power windows but not power locks...just wont happen. Not only do the imaging chips cost much more than you estimate, they inherently attract more pros who want more pro options, most higher end professionals are not looking for camcorder form factor.

What people do not understand is that on a quality range from 0-100, getting above 50 it pretty cheap, getting it to 80 can still be affordable, getting it to 90 it becomes "prosumer" but that last 10 may require TEN TIMES the R&D, TEN TIMES the manufacturing costs, etc.

There is no camera selling for more than it's worth... period endstop. If it really wasnt WORTH it to at least some people, it would not sell at all. There are now 12 megapixel cameras on eBay for $79 with 1/2" CMOS imagers... you think those are as good as a Canon DSLR??



ash =o)

A Michelin or Goodyear tire may be the same size and fit the same rim as a Big-O retread, but there the similarities end!

Mike

Talk to the people at RED. They started with the same idea of developing a cheap large chip camera- a 35mm size chip.... Last time I looked, the camera without lens was around 17K, and lenses were pushing to 5 to 10 k.

Having come from the semiconductor industry, I can tell you that it is easier to put a given number of pixels (or transistors) on a larger piece of silicon. The process tolerances are much more difficult to maintain with higher density devices such as smaller CCD's.

So it may be true that the actual CCD's are cheaper to manufacture, but it's the rest of the camera they build around it that costs more. Even the lenses are easier to manufacture for larger sensors.

There is a premium to be paid for the resultant quality that you get from the camera.


-gb-

Okay, I get what you all are saying. I thought of those things and I understand there are many factors that bring up the cost of a camera. I think the combined factors should determine the price and not that:

1/4" CCD cameras cost under $1500.

1/3" cameras cost between $2000 and $9000.

1/2" models are $10k-25,000

2/3" will cost you $25k-100,000.

There seems to be no overlap due to other features even though the other factors are what brings up the cost to manufacture. The imager chip size seems to be the all-inclusive factor of price. I think I miss my VX2000 and, although they are nice cameras, I wish the new HDV cameras had decent low-light capabilities. Lower light capability means less power needs on set and that adds up to an easier and cheaper shoot when going on location.

I guess I just need a bigger crew and more $$$...

There is a premium to be paid for the resultant quality that you get from the camera.

So in other words we are paying for the priviledge of using them rather than the technology.

The big question is what will happen once Red is released. Forget the form factor of that camera. In terms of sensor technology there will have to be some changes because people will ask why the Red sensor performs as it does for much less cost to buy than most 2/3" cameras. Whether Sony and Panasonic like it or not they will have to answer such questions.

in fact he is partially right.
There are some products that are linked to a form factor (like CD-R for example).
Then everybody must build the product on same specs. Then you can compare price, and then prices go low automatically.
just imagine that everybody agrees to use the same CCD size (let say 1/2).
Then production would go better, price levelled and lower and you could compare. Ok there still will be a gold plated camera with many options that will cost 10x the cheapest plastic model, but at least, it would not be due to the sensor.
Look at the LCD or PLASMA screens, despite the wide range of producer, many different sizes, prices does not vary so much.

"Talk to the people at RED. They started with the same idea of developing a cheap large chip camera- a 35mm size chip.... Last time I looked, the camera without lens was around 17K, and lenses were pushing to 5 to 10 k."

I think for a camera that meets their targets, that is still cheap. If it is anywhere close to it's claims/goals, it will be competing with $50,000 models.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm only trying to get camera users and producers to stop having low expectations of imaging devices that are not based in the facts. The facts are that fairly large CCDs that have decent quality and light sensitivity are being produced cheaply. Putting smaller chips in prosumer cameras should barely lower their production costs so I don't understand why they still insist on keeping with these standards now that they are not really relevant.

I really think that an HDV equivalent to the PD170 with the same light sensitivity (for more portable lighting rigs) would make tons of money for Sony.

That said, I am probably going to get the new V1 as I put exposure latitude up there right next to light sensitivity as a desireable characteristic.

EDIT: I just checked prices on some ENG-style >1/3" cameras and they are not as expensive as I talked about. I guess prices have fallen in the mid-range field.

Also keep in mind that not all CCDs are created equal. CCDs used in scientific cameras (for microscopes and telescopes) have a fairly substantial range in quantum efficiencies as price goes up, ranging from 20% to 80%, giving a 4x increase in sensitivity. Part of that increase comes from cooling (which is noisy and consequently prohibitive for videography), but part also comes from more sophisticated chips, lower tolerances, and improved gain circuitry. So don't assume that the CCD going into a $300 point-and-shoot still camera is equivalent to the CCD(s) going into a $5000 prosumer video camera.

Case-in-point: The VX2100/PD170 is considered to be at least three-times more sensitive than other 3-CCD 1/3rd inch SD camcorders. There are a lot of variables that help its sensitivity, but I think better CCDs have to account for some of it.

That said, I wish the V1 had bigger chips. Or maybe submerging the camera in liquid nitrogen would quiet the noise in the +36 dB gain mode enough to compensate....

Read somewhere that we could expect that an NAB 2007 in successor to Z1

Read somewhere that we could expect that an NAB 2007 in successor to Z1What, more sensitivity or stylish portable nitrogen tanks? :)

I'm damn tired of waiting for Sony to get on the ball! I'm heading out to get some liquid Helium!

I expect to see cameras with quantum DSP chips with photon wave-guide interconnects by NAB 2007.

I guess the advice I have heard repeated around here to buy a camera that does what you want right now is the path to follow. I can't get everything I want now, but maybe it will happen on my next cam. Until then, I have a movie to make! :)

Again, thanks for letting me vent and also for setting me back on track.

For some reason people forget that products are not priced to cost, but usually to market. The concept of cost plus rarely applies to high tech products
Sharyn

As I heard an Intel guy once say "The first chip off a production line costs you $25,000,000. The second one costs a nickel."

Marcus, your rant is on target. Why do you folks think that the Sony HC3 and Canon HV10 have no line/mic in and LANC controls? Those low end products would be good enough for some pros without paying the premium of the larger models. Look at the Sony A1 and see what a small upchange does to make a "consumer" product a pro product. And see how Sony has not currently revamped the A1 to match the HC3. They are leaving off the extras in attempt to protect their gravy market of business customers. That is why RED is being successful. It is not as profitable to change the market to what you can do as it is to give them what you easily profit at doing.

Not that there is anything wrong with this. But as a consumer, it is OK to recognize that you are not profiting from their maximizing profits. We just need more competition in the market.

> I really think that an HDV equivalent to the PD170 with the same light sensitivity (for more portable lighting rigs) would make tons of money for Sony.

I'm with Marcus, though companies make what people are willing to pay for. If you want an example in the DSLR industry, take the Nikon D2H. Even when it came out, 4 megapixels was less than what the competitors offered. It was cheaper, offered 8 frames/second with a pro body and top-of-the-line autofocus. I have one and love it because it suits my needs for indoor action sports. The fact is that even "lowlight" customers balk at lower resolution because higher resolution is more useful in better lighting.

On your note, a large-sensored video camera with great 240 frames/second progressive recording, multi-area focusing and the ability to take 35mm Nikon/Canon AF lenses would seem awesome. Why doesn't it exist ? Because market research shows that it is not profitable enough for the company to make.

I have to laugh, market research.....
When was the last time that Panasonic or Sony ever did any indepth research to what people on this forum or some of the others sites in the industry really were really concerned about.

Sure they lurk on these forums, but have real conversations??? really solicit input... after all we are just the people who use and buy this stuff.

It is interesting, Microsoft when the decided to make a big commitment to HD DVD decided to allow their top executive for their effort to actively participate in an online forum, to interact, ask and answer questions, even have a road trip to meet the real users. Unfortunately the Japanese Video product companies never seem to understand the value of customer interaction.

Sharyn

I have to laugh, market research.....
When was the last time that Panasonic or Sony ever did any indepth research to what people on this forum or some of the others sites in the industry really were really concerned about.

Sure they lurk on these forums, but have real conversations??? really solicit input... after all we are just the people who use and buy this stuff.

Sharyn

But you have to remember that the majority of the people who buy these cameras are not on these forums. We are a very small "comparatively" niche.

Laws of supply and demand. Research and Development come into play here.

The best personal analogy I can give you is this: While it's cheap to duplicate a DVD of a production you shot/edited, how much time/labor was put into the content on that DVD? Should your clients only have to pay 30 cents (about the cost of a DVD) because that's how much blanks cost?

With imaging chips, you have to pay lots of people (engineers), tech support folks, distribution (airplanes, trucks, etc.), marketing costs, and much more. These are all factors in price points.

Also, let's not forget that high end cameras do not have as large sales as cheaper consumer cameras. There aren't many Genesis cameras sold, but because the R&D is the same (probably much more so, but for sake of argument it's the same) but the company needs to get a Return On Investment. As the technology gets older (DV cameras of today look better than $100,000 cameras back in the early '90s), prices go down. New technology takes over (HD, lower light sensitivity, better glass).

And your 1/1.4" chip digital camera? Is that a still camera or a video camera?

As someone in another post said, it's easy (i.e. inexpensive) to get decent video with newer cameras. It's a little bit more expensive to get higher end quality, and as you reach closer to matching film with CineAltas, your costs go up. That last bit that closes in on getting "perfect" image quality costs you. Just like in the audio realm, you can get "decent" audio on a Shure SM57, for example. But there's something about those Neumann mics that make people want to pay more. Clarity, depth, "character", whatever you call it, it's there.. Most people might not be able to tell a difference, but their perception on "pro" vs. "average joe" does change whether they know it or not.

I just bought a digital camera with a 1/1.7" CCD which is larger than a 1/2" CCD and the whole package cost $300 including a gigabyte of memory.

Post the model number of that camera and I suspect we'll find there's a typo on the sensor size, but your point still has some validity. The Canon 5D Mark II proves that a camera with a full-frame 35mm sensor capable of recording HD video at decent bit rates can be produced for a reasonable price, so why aren't we seeing this technology in a proper video camera? You can buy a Sony EX1 for under $6K which would have been considered amazing for the price a few years ago, but that's still not quite what you're talking about. As others have noted there are R&D costs to recover, plus we can probably assume the manufacturers don't want to undercut sales of their best cameras by producing a $5K model which is almost as good.

The first chip out of a factory costs 10 million dollars. The second one out the door costs a nickel.

WOW, old thread back from the dead!

I suspect at least a part of why cameras cost as they do is marketing... someone sits in a dark room contemplating what "the market" looks like... someone from engineering slips some diagrams and mockups under the door once in a while, and eventually management decides to produce something that's a compromise in as many ways possible without being a total flop...

R&D and the "engineers" see things one way - everything is a "new and improved TOY" (channelling the geek in me)...

Marketing sees everything as a challenge to sell snow to eskimos...

Accounting of course operates with two places to the right of the decimal point, and everything but the pie chart is B&W (or maybe red in the current economy).



The problem is the END USER, yep, the guy/gal who actually decides to pay for and use the end product may have an entirely different idea than "all of the above"... Thus explaining why some products are considered "hot", and others flop... and we get fits and bursts of technology so that "the market" remains in equillibrium until something like the 5DMk2 (or the HV20 when it hit) shakes things up a bit.

And of course "one size does NOT fit all"... any more than with clothes/styles. The average consumer (of which there are many...) may want a pocket cam to shoot bad U-TOOB videos, and that's the end of it... not everyone hopes for an Oscar for their camera work, some are just happy to have a passable (or even horrible by "pro" standards)memorialization of the moment, and don't really give a poop if there are tiny black spots around a few lights...

I suspect at least a part of why cameras cost as they do is marketing... someone sits in a dark room contemplating what "the market" looks like... someone from engineering slips some diagrams and mockups under the door once in a while, and eventually management decides to produce something that's a compromise in as many ways possible without being a total flop...

...Marketing sees everything as a challenge to sell snow to eskimos...

Sounds like someone slipped a little "cynical" into your morning coffee. (grin)

I think this whole metric becomes clear once one looks at it in terms of the overall value proposition (perceived by the consumer) and not in terms of what it costs the manufacturer to make. As an example, in the early 80s I worked for a minicomputer manufacturer that sold a 40MB fixed/removable hard drive that was field upgradable to 80MB. The upgrade cost was many thousands of dollars but could be done by a field engineer by throwing just one switch. Customers paid the money because they needed the capacity. They perceived the value as worth the price. Cost of goods really didn't enter into the discussion for them.

There's also some basic B school economics at play. For example, Canon will sell many times more US$200 DV camcorders than they will XH-A1s so they can spread all of the development costs over the larger number of units produced, so the price for the consumer is lower. For the sake of argument, say that Canon sell 1/10th the number of XH-A1s as they do the consumer cam, that means the burdened cost of the A1 is that much higher.

It's all pretty easy to understand if you take the macro view.

I don't buy ANY of the reasons why larger sensors must jack up the price a hundred fold with no exceptions. Does anyone remember 35mm film for still cameras? There were $15 35mm still cameras as well as models that cost thousands of dollars. Glass vs. plastic lenses, zoom capability, external flash, interchangeable lenses, the list goes on of differentiation without compromising the imaging element. It is entirely possible to build varied business models around a quality focal plane. If they would standardize on two or three imager sizes, they could have plenty of market breadth without hamstringing $5000 HDV cameras with 1/3" chips when $150 p&s cameras have 1/2" chips. 1/4" and 1/3" chips in prosumer HD cameras should have never happened. There are plenty of other factors to adjust costs without sacrificing the imaging element.

I didn't mean to resurrect this old thread when I linked to it from another forum but rather to show I knew the truth years ago and I guess Red, Nikon, and Canon had the same ideas.

I don't buy ANY of the reasons why larger sensors must jack up the price a hundred fold with no exceptions. Does anyone remember 35mm film for still cameras? There were $15 35mm still cameras as well as models that cost thousands of dollars. Glass vs. plastic lenses, zoom capability, external flash, interchangeable lense

Ah, but the "imager" in film was the film and it did cost a HEFTY premium to move up from 35mm to medium format and then up to sheet film from there. Over simplified, the camera around the 35mm was nothing more than a hole that stays open a certain amount for a very specific period of time to capture an inverted image projected by a piece of plastic or glass onto it's surface.

The fact of the matter is... its a racket, plain and simple!!!

I have gone over this in my head many times and come to the conclusion that pricing is not fair... it is not based on production costs or R&D, it is based solely on what fools are willing to pay...

Lets use film cameras as an example, why was a 35mm slr with a set of good lenses selling for 5k... and a ARRI movie camera, which is essentially the same thing with a fast motor drive, selling for 250k WITHOUT lenses...

The truth is, if you are perceived as being able to make money with any given product, the price will reflect that... and the more money one is expected to make with a given product the more it will cost...

Canon HV20 $500 - No potential for profit, Canon Xh-a1 3k - Some potential for limited profit - Red camera 30k Significant potential for profit, Sony F950 200k Almost guaranteed potential for profit, Panavision cinema camera $priceless (they are only available to rent) will DEFINITELY be used to make profit.

If the only difference in the equipment is the price you pay, why not use the canon hv20 instead of the Panavision cinema camera ?
The only difference according to your post, is the price. there is no difference in research and development between the two cameras.

Here is reality. it might cost the exact same price to R&D the hv20 as the Panavision cinema camera (although obviously even that is not true) but canon can sell thousands and thousands of the hv20, and the cost of R&D is spread amongst all of that model.
how many of the Panavision cinema camera is sold by comparison? if there is a 2 million dollar R&D cost and there is going to be a very limited market, the camera price will be higher to absorb that cost.

Okay I'm going to interject here. It isn't just R&D costs or manufacturing costs. People who work for the companies have to be *paid*. Just like you and me they need their monthly salary coming in so that they can feed their kids.

Take ENG cameras for one example. How many of, say, the Panasonic 3700 do you think they sell worldwide? How many of the XDCAM PDW-700? Fact is that if they are lucky it gets to tens of thousands. Not hundreds of thousands, not millions.

Sony for example might claim a certain number of XDCAM units in circulation. But in reality a lot of those figures they give are not just for camcorders but also decks etc. There's a very low profit margin on them.

Lets see now. The camera cost has to cover not only R&D and manufacturing, but also a constant monthly income for the people who work at the company, funding of future developments, funding of developing new firmwares, funding of marketing, funding of distribution, and lastly they have to make a profit.

Of course a company like Red can make the cameras for less. They have less infrastructure to support.

Unfortunately the Japanese Video product companies never seem to understand the value of customer interaction.

They do. That's why they listen to the likes of Alister Chapman, Phil Bloom, Greg Boston and myself, and lots of other working camera ops.

The reason they don't take part on forums is because it doesn't really have any benefit. They *do* read them though. If only you knew the reaction to some of the posts here on DVinfo in the past!

Lets use film cameras as an example, why was a 35mm slr with a set of good lenses selling for 5k... and a ARRI movie camera, which is essentially the same thing with a fast motor drive, selling for 250k WITHOUT lenses...


Crystal sync, mission critical drive components, over/undercrank in EXACT increments, a shutter that needs to fire problem free 24 times a second for thousands of hours without fail, video tap, limited install base to amortize the R&D costs... and I don't work in film so I'm sure I'm missing about 1000 things.

Don't get me wrong John, I don't think you're entirely off base but I think you've inadvertently overlooked some VERY key features that differentiate mass market consumer gear from pro gear. In order to get to the 98th percentile from the 97th probably costs ten time the amount to go from the 96th to the 97th.

Oh, by the way... the last time i went to NAB i got to play with a super tricked out ARRI 35mm, with the biggest lens i have come across... and it was the sweetest thing i have ever seen... their was no question of build quality!!!

There are a LOT of factors, and one thing to consider is that to print a book that you could create on a low end desktop today would have taken a printing press the size of a room maybe a decade or two ago, and at one time was simply impossible... simply because the technology didn't exist... then you realize that anyone can "publish" on the web with little effort, and that's even more amazing!

Technology/computing horsepower is altering one industry after another, and video is the latest thing to see the "change". Publishing, photography, computer graphics, video - think about it for a moment, and you'll see how much each of these areas has changed massively in a relatively short period of time.

Part of that change is the motive of profit for the producer and user of any technology - if people don't go to watch movies, do you think they'd make them? Same with TV. Why are traditional media companies struggling... when was the last time you went "offline" for... a map... directions... a review... etc...? Times are changing, we live in the "technology revolution", same as the "industrial revolution" of old... Unless you're a luddite or Amish, your life is quite a bit different than it was 10 years ago.


What's happening right now, and it's huge, is that HD is revolutionizing the capabilities at lower price points, that are probably not much different from dad's old 8mm. It wasn't THAT long ago that a "TV" was something with about 10-20" of roundish screen in glorious B&W. I'll bet most of you are watching your output on something a bit larger and more vibrant.

Sensor technology for still cams has progressed rapidly (and taking 30fps vs. 2-3fps is a HUGE technical challenge). Give it time, and demand for better and better quality will bring better "toys".

Maybe we'll see a 1/2" sensor with nice front glass in something similar to the TRV900 with good manual control someday, or maybe not.

Maybe next generation CMOS will "fix" the low light and RS or whatever... in a 1/4" sensor that bends the laws of physics.

Maybe we'll be displaying our output on a 10 foot screen we simply roll up in a tube and can take anywhere sometime soon too.

Technology progresses, but the price points don't change much - early adopters pay more for the latest greatest "toys" (Let's compare a TRV900 @ around $2500 to a HC1 @ $2K anyone? Compare to HV20 @ $500 - which was the "better" deal/camera?).


Personally I just wish that there were some cameras in the wasteland between "consumer" sub $1K, and "pro-sumer" which seems to start in at around $3500... I can't for the life of me figure out why the huge gap, when an "in between" camera is such an obvious offering, and could practically be done "off the shelf" to meet a demand that is well represented here, and I'd think would sell like hotcakes if it were available. I don't want a "big" camera, I just want more control and the best image possible in something a bit more practical to carry around.

As a practical matter, the image quality I get with "this years model" consumer cam is leaps ahead of anything I could have bought at "almost" any price 10 years ago, so I guess I can't really complain, still we can dream, right!?

i think it's also important to consider what the average consumer needs.

A larger sensor means more critical focus, and shallower DOF. For your average wedding videographer, this means more work and possibly poorer results. The 1/3" sensor strikes a nice balance of deep DOF, high resolution, decent lowlight and low price-point.


It's also interesting to note the points folks have been kaing about getting from the 97th to the 98th percentile. We see this all the time in the automotive world. You take a car like the Bugatti Veyron 16.4, which costs well over $2,000,000, simply to move from that 230mph class (like $350,000 ferarries and lambos) to the 250mph class (like the SSC Aero and Ascari A1)

Those last few MPH require tripling the BHP