What format is most requested?
 

Crews Control, which books crews for professional shoots, has compiled a list of the most sought after video formats by production companies. This is based on what their clients request:

CREWS CONTROL TREND TRACKER (based on Nov. 2012 data)

Formats
HD: 97%
SD: 3%

Camera Formats
XDCAM EX: 45%
DVC PRO HD: 24%
XDCAM HD: 7%
DVC PRO HD EX: 10%
DVCAM: 2%
XF: 4%
HDV: 2%
AVCCAM: 4%
HDCAM: <1%
AVCHD: <1%
MINI-DV: <1%
AVC Intra: 0%
DV: 0%

I think I might have to pick up a PMW-200!
But what the heck is DVC PRO HD EX??

http://newsletter.crewscontrol.com/D...-Is-Good-To-Do

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Also:

MEDIA:
SxS Card: 45%
P2 Card: 25%
HD/SD TAPE: 15%
OPTICAL DISC: 7%
CF Card: 4%
SD Card: 5%

MANUFACTURERS:
SONY: 58%
PANASONIC: 38%
CANON: 4%

FORMATS:
5K: 0% • 4K: 0% • 2K: 0%
HD: 97% • SD: 3%

This info might be just for the month of Nov., 2012, instead of a year long trend, but the article isn't specific.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Thanks for the info, Glen.

I'm targeting the PMW-200 as well.

I switched from the Canon XH-A1 to the Sony FS-100 a while back. On the run, I miss a real video camera.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Actually, looking at the info, I'm not sure if it's listing gear the production crews have, or gear requested by clients. I wrote an email, but they're out of office until January.

But still interesting how XDCAM EX dominates.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I guess I made a good choice with my EX1R, seeing EX is now pretty much industry standard.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I got a confirmation - this is a list of what clients request.

I think I need an XDCAM EX camera.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I wonder where XDCAM HD422 fits into this survey? It's a very popular format and especially the Sony PDW-700 camcorder is in high demand, but oddly enough this format doesn't appear at all in the Crews Control line-up. It's neither XDCAM EX nor XDCAM HD.

To my knowledge, DVCPRO HD EX is a longplay version of DVCPRO HD with EXtended running time for longer recordings. But I don't know which camera is able to shoot it (HDX900 maybe?).

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I wonder what the demand is for "large sensor" sDOF shooting.
Given where XDCAM EX is vs AVCHD, it might mean the Sony F3 dominates over other large sensor cameras.
I believe their focus is on corporate video production so that's an important factor.
There's no sign of RED demand for example.

Yet look at their camera list
Video Equipment list | Services | Crews Control

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I suspect they mean DVCPro-HD LP. Try Panasonic AJ-HD1600 DVCPRO HD-LP Studio VTR
I think it only appeared briefly, maybe just on one camera, and if it's what I'm thinking of had problems with dropout - hardly surprising due to the narrow track width on DVCPro tape. (Only half the width of other DVCPro formats.) It was an attempt to answer the criticism of too short run times on DVCPro tape when used in 100Mbs HD mode - unfortunately it brought problems of it's own. (Incompatability with other DVCPro decks as well as dropouts.)

Very difficult to see why a client would positively request it! Compatability with existing edit decks being one reason I suppose.

For corporate use XDCAM EX has a lot to commend it - when the "broadcast absolute" requirement of XDCAM422 is not needed. Not least being able to use an SDHC card workflow - shoot to SDHC cards and simply handover the card to producer. No worry about messed up downloads.

And whilst people are thinking that XDCAM EX=EX1R, then don't forget the PMW320 and PMW350. Same codec but true pro shouldermount cameras with 1/2" and 2/3" chips.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Not to be picky but there's also the EX3 and some handycams like the PMW-150 and JVC camcorders that also support the XDCAM EX workflow

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I assumed XDCAM HD meant XDCAM HD422.

So, get the EX1R, the EX3, or the PMW200 or 160? Hmmm....
I pick these because of the price range.
Heck, maybe even the JVC HM600 or 650. It's also XDCAM EX.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Philip Johnston is pretty positive about the JVC ... if you haven't already seen his write up:
HD Warrior Blog Archiv JVC GY-HM600 Review 2012

I noticed the JVC engineers designed the LCD, shoe and mic holder in a way that the LCD can be moved from open to closed without removing a wireless on the shoe and the mic holder doesn't stick up as much as it does on the PMW 100, 150 and 200.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

It's all changing pretty rapidly at the moment, so I think it'd be hard to judge. Here in Australia for example, the C300 seems to have taken over the majority of mid-priced large-sensor gigs that were previously the Sony F3's domain (thanks mostly to it's broadcast standard codec) - the F3 however, seems to be maintaining the niche between the C300 and Alexa/Epic when paired with 10-bit recorders for SLOG.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I did read the review of the JVC HM600, and I'm very impressed. I really like that little camera. Its low light is almost as good as a 2/3" chip cam.

But, will clients accept it? I can tell them it shoots XDCAM EX just like the Sonys, even AVCHD, and probably puts out a better image, but will they risk a shoot on a relatively unknown camera? It's not what I want, but what I can successfully market. I prefer the JVC as far as cost, ability, adaptability, etc.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

What "professional" niche are we talking about here? Corporate video talking heads? Instructional videos? Because for tv commercial advertising shoots in the San Francisco Bay area, I saw Alexa, Red, Canon C300, and Sony F3 being used, nothing less.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

In context i think it's more likely to refer to the original High definition spec for HD cam - such as used with the 1/2" disc cameras. As such was a family of bitrates and sub-sampled down to 1440x1080.

XDCAM EX was a development which gave full raster 1920x1080 in an mp4 container, but was also 4:2:0 colour sampling.

AFAIK the highest variant has always been known as XDCAM422 or XDCAM 50Mbs.

It does seem that the list is weighted towards older formats - but that may be simply reflecting client demands who are requesting what their workflow revolves around. I'm surprised to see DVCProHD so high on the list, whilst AVC-Intra hardly registers.
Can I ask what reference you have for the claim about the low light? A 2/3" chip has 4x the surface area of a 1/3" chip, and all else equal a 2/3" camera must have a 2+ stop advantage over the equivalent with 1/3" chips. The HM600 may indeed have things to commend it, but I find it hard to believe it will rival a modern 2/3" camera in low light.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

JVC says the HM600 is rated at F11 at 2,000 lux. According to a JVC rep on this site, it's closer to F12.
The 1/2 EX cams are rated around F10. I think the new HPX600 is rated around F12 maybe.

I didn't say they were the same as a 2/3" cam, just that JVC has somehow made them almost as good, probably the best for 1/3" cams. Remember, 1/3" cams usually have very fast lenses.

Here's the JVC link:

JVC Professional Features page

And a good video review:

Re: What format is most requested?
 

In isolation, figures like "f11 at 2,000lux" don't really tell you very much. To have any meaning, they have to be qualified with noise figures at that setting, it all depends what s/n ratio a manufacturer is prepared to accept.

Hence, a camera quoted as (say) f11 at 2,000lux, might seem far better than one quoted at f8 at 2,000lux? But if measured s/n was (say) -50dB in the first case, -56dB in the second, then intrinsically they have comparable performance. The first camera is effectively performing the same as the second with 6dB of gain in!

And it gets even more difficult when software noise reduction gets used. At first sight this can indeed make a camera seem more sensitive - but it comes at a price, getting rid of the noise can mean other nasty artifacts, and can really cause problems in post work. (Classic example being the problems with the "noise ghosts" of the HPX371. Panasonic were using processing to make the apparent noise level seem lower - but it caused noise trails on moving objects. Solution is to switch the noise processing off - but then it reverts to poorer low light performance. You don't get anything for nothing.)

And in the JVC promo you link to, it's commented on that with 6dB in "some noise reduction is evident", so I suspect a similar story here. None of this makes the HM600 a bad camera - but I am extremely sceptical of claims like " JVC has somehow made them almost as good" (as a 2/3"). But maybe JVC would like to give a formal answer to what the s/n is at 0dB, and whether any artificial noise reduction processing is applied?

I believe the f12 figure you quote for the Panasonic HPX600 also relates to "noise reduction on", and similar circuitry to the HPX371? Turn it (and the "noise ghosts"!) off and expect it to be more like f8-f10, which is pretty well what I'd expect. Compared to a 3 chip 1/2" camera, it will gain about a stop due to the bigger area, but lose a bit more than a stop due to being single chip, not three.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Then don't buy an HM600!
Sheesh...

Re: What format is most requested?
 

That's not the point.

The HM600 has many good and unique features which may make it a good buy for some users. Ability to record 35Mbs MPEG2 to SD card directly (no adaptor) may be one, AVC-HD *AND* the XDCAM codec is also good.

(In the context of this thread, one client may ask for AVC-HD, another may ask for XDCAM 35Mbs - with this camera you can satisfy either with one piece of hardware.)

But if lowlight ability is of high importance to any potential user, don't be fooled into thinking it will be "almost as good" as a 2/3" camera in this respect, and I've tried to give some reasoning above as to why simple quoted figures and claims should be taken with a big pinch of salt. (And that applies to most manufacturers.)

Re: What format is most requested?
 

To back up what David says, of all the camera specifications that manufacturers list, sensitivity has always been the most abused. I'm not saying that the camera manufacturers lie, but they will rarely reveal the the gain or noise levels at the stated sensitivity. They do this simply because they can, as most people just read the headline number without understand it's real meaning. It's the same with resolution where once upon a time resolution meant the resolving power of the camera, but now it's become acceptable (or at least common practice) to quote the sensors horizontal pixel count as the resolution, which is very different to the cameras resolving power.

Once upon a time, when cameras were much more expensive, many purchasing decisions were made by engineers who understood the implications of the numbers. At this time the manufacturers had to be much more careful about how they played the numbers game. Today very few production companies have engineers and as a result the camera manufactures and sales companies are able to use bigger numbers to sell cameras, even if those numbers are actually quite meaningless unless you know the full story behind how the numbers were determined.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

+100. That's how this thing works...

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Sadly a lot of client's haven't a clue about anything technical and will just go with what is the latest flavour of the month, you also get the lo/no brigade who think that they can't shoot on anything less than a RED or Alexa.

I have even had post production supervisors on major TV drama product who have little knowledge about workflows or even shooting formats so I take any such list with a pinch of salt as it may just be what camera is requested as a hire cam or even a self shoot handycam and the EX1 tends to be the most common but more recently the canon XF305.

It's more about right tools for the job and if you are shooting news for ITV you still need a tape based DVcam but if you are shooting a lo/no self funded film project it is also silly to expect a RED or Alexa for free,

sadly most client camera choices these days are based on how cheap can I get it rather than how good will it look and function in the field or more importantly suit a post workflow.

As a P2 user I am surprised that DVCPro HD is even on the list as AVC Intra 100 is a far superior codec for shooting and post and has been around for nearly four years now, or is this list totally out of date???

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I think you may have gone a long way towards answering your own question when you say "if you are shooting news for ITV you still need a tape based DVCAM". Point is that an organisation may adopt a format and be with it for a number of years. Bigger the organisation, the higher the likely commitment, the more difficult to make a change. Hence it's very unlikely ITV news would equip themselves around DVCAM if buying now - but there's a lot to be said for making existing assets pay for themselves as long as possible.

And the relevance is that if they hire someone to shoot for them, that person will be expected to deliver in the house format. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to expect such a list to reflect formats that may not now be considered cutting edge.

And you say " AVC Intra 100 is a far superior codec {to DVCProHD} for shooting and post ......". If you're talking about pure quality for a given bitrate, that may be true, but it's far more processing intensive than such as DVCProHD, so in that respect may be seen as inferior. Likewise, DVCProHD can be shot to tape or to solid state. If anyones workflow currently revolves around tape, that puts AVC-Intra out of the equation.

For anyone with a single stand alone edit station, the processing overhead may not be too big an issue. But move up into the world of video servers and it alone may put AVC-Intra out of the question for the time being.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

points taken David and I am sure are right but in the case of ITV they are dishing out hd handycams to journo's but expecting freelancers to buy 500' s for the same daily rate!

I am working for them on Sat doing the FA cup and we have been told that we have to cable our sony 1500' s as it is impossible to send HD down a triax tie line. well we have been doing that via fibre to triax converter boxes for two years now doing premiership coverage and sony also make the 1550 that can do it without a converter box.

just goes to show that your client may be so far out of date with technology and don't know any better!

Re: What format is most requested?
 

DSR500s, or PMW500s?

Re: What format is most requested?
 

PMW500 !

As a side note ITV have probably never seen a sony 1500 as they are generally ten years out of date!

Dsr 450 or 570 have been Dvcam std for that time.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

It's an interesting situation, only a few years back broadcasters would not generally adopt a new format, standard or particular camera until after it's been available for a year or so. This was to allow the bugs, issues, pros and cons to show themselves before making a commitment to a large investment. Then once the format was decided it would take a few months to get the budgeting approved, and a few more months for tenders and supply contracts to be sorted. So more often than not the cameras didn't arrive in the hands of the end users until a couple of years after the launch. These days with cameras coming and going in 18 months to two years how will the broadcasters and larger organisations keep up. I know that most manufacturers will give larger organisations sneak peaks at what will be launched around 6 to 9 months in advance, but even so. I guess many of the larger organisations with wheels and cogs that turn slowly are at the grass roots level at least destined to always be acquiring new tech just as it get replaced by newer and supposedly better tech. Then they have to teach everyone how to get the best from it, fine tune the workflow and get the whole infrastructure up to speed. Meanwhile the rest of the outside world has already moved on. I'm sure this in part explains why so many, what I would consider legacy codecs and formats are still very much in demand with rental houses. It may be that as many operators these days own their own kit and like to have the latest, current kit, that when requests come in from the larger organisations that are still struggling to recoup the investment made on 5 year old technology that the operators can only supply the "out of date" tech by renting it.

It's quite scary to think that HDV and DVCPro HD are codecs that were very much De-facto HD codecs only 5 years ago but by many are now considered archaic and completely out of date. For broadcasters used to getting 15 years out of Betacam etc that's a hard pill to swallow. It's also in part why Mpeg 2 in the form of XDCAM HD422 continues to hang on as a broadcast codec because the workflow etc is now so well sorted and ingrained in so many organisations that even though it's "only" 8 bit and a somewhat dated codec by todays standards, it looks like XDCAM will still be around in another 5 years, even though by then it really will be old technology.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

only" 8 bit and a somewhat dated codec by todays standards, it looks like XDCAMHD422 will still be around in another 5 years, even though by then it really will be old technology...

Maybe from an economic standpoint in very tough economic times we are hovering around the point of diminishing return considering the size and quality of the display venues (generally mis-calibrated flat panels in the 40" to 50" range) and the clamped pipeline delivery schemes of satellite and cable. Maybe HDCAM422 is already far beyond the distribution and display portions of the chain for broadcast. I would imagine if I were in the shoes of the "suits" responsible for turning a profit, it would be tough to make new investment that doesn't translate in a noticeable way down to their customers.

We are so lucky these days with the equipment and price points. It's exponential.
Ghosting tube based black and white behemoths to Betacam. How long and costly.
Betacam to Mini-DV/DVCam ........ HDV.......P2 ......External Recorders XDR/nanoFlash HDCam422 ..DSLR video..10bit codecs..C300.. F3.. BMCinema Cam in DNGRaw..................faster and faster.. better and better.. cheaper and cheaper ---- Big Boys - Red, Alexa, F65

Re: What format is most requested?
 

I'm not really knocking XDCAM as a codec, it does an excellent job and I use it day in, day out and get great results. But, within the same 50Mb/s bandwidth you could have a 10 bit codec that would deliver higher quality images. Yes, we are in an area of diminishing returns and yes delivery is often far from ideal. We are lucky here in the UK to have a few very high quality HD channels and you can see the difference between high quality shows and lower quality ones. Conventional delivery over the air will continue for many years to come. But we are now seeing an ever greater number of viewers watching content on computers and personal viewing devices with delivery via the internet. As a lucky owner of both a Retina iPad and Laptop, I can tell you that good quality content looks simply stunning. The screens might be small, but when your only 18" from the screen you really can see the quality. This is very important and it's something the accountants are starting to wake up to, because it's much easier to control and monetize content delivered over the web than via conventional broadcast methods. It's also easier to profitably cater for smaller audiences as you don't need a traditional broadcast infrastructure. Where once it was simply not viable to produce a programme that might only attract an audience of 10,000 in a single country, with the web your audience can be global. Then 10,000 viewers in 20 countries becomes 200,000 viewers and if you make a dollar from each viewer that's a pretty decent budget for a documentary or short film. As the internet gets faster, as 3G and 4G becomes common place and personal viewing devices become less of a luxury item and more of a commodity item, this audience will grow.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

My understanding is that, to date. the problem is gathering that dollar from each of those viewers.

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Alister, good statement about the future.

Please enlighten me. Is 50Mbps 10 bit codec better straight out of the camera, or is it better because you can produce something better with it in post?

Re: What format is most requested?
 

Firstly, fully agree with all the early points. For a big organisation, such as a camera re-equipment is a big investment and they will want to get the return on the assets. Just because something isn't the newest or most advanced doesn't mean it's not capable of doing the job - though it may mean it wouldn't be what they would buy now. Let's think ourselves lucky we don't work in such as the rail industry - rolling stock is expected to carry on working for many more years than camera equipment!

But I'm less sure about calling MPEG2 a "dated codec", and it all goes back to what a codec really is. A means of coding a signal to maintain quality whilst trying to reduce datarate. And three things can be traded against each other - quality, bitrate and complexity (or computing power).

And the latter often gets ignored in debates. Keeping up quality whilst reducing bitrate is nearly always seen as a good thing, discussions often ignoring that it must involve extra processing. There is no denying that very often a highly efficient (in terms solely of bitrate versus quality) codec is indeed worthwhile - H264 is well worth the effort in such as broadcast TV where it's bandwidth that is at the real premium. But in many other cases then using a lot of extra complexity to squeeze a relatively small extra bitrate reduction is pointless - and that may well apply often to acquisition. If you were buying a car and I offered you a £5,000 addon to save 20% of your fuel costs, then would you take it? Answer will depend on your annual mileage, if you don't do that many miles it's probably more cost effective to pay for the extra fuel, but not spend the £5,000.

I recently linked to this - XAVC Sonys implementation of Advanced Video Coding - Sony Community - 36571 - in another thread, and it's very relevant here. (It shows many of the graphs about codecs that Sony were showing at a recent F5/55 roadshow.)

Scroll down to figure 5 and it shows how quickly a given computer will process various codecs. It's pretty obvious that in this respect MPEG2 based codecs (XDCAM422 here) are the clear winners in terms of speed of processing, compared to all the H264/AVC ones. I have to say the amount came as a surprise to me - I'd have previously guessed that the workload to decode AVC in an I-frame only codec would be roughly comparable to the interframe compression in XDCAM. The graphs show that not to be the case, interframe will need more work than I-frame only, but nowhere near as much as going to something AVC based.

Those graphs come from a presentation to introduce the new Sony codec coming with the F5/55 - XAVC. They were at pains to point out that XAVC was seen in no way as a replacement for XDCAM and XDCAM422 for very much this reason. XAVC enabled extra possibilities - such as 10 bit and 4k resolutions - but at the expense of a lot of extra processing. As such, XDCAM and XAVC should not be seen as rivals as much as different horses for different courses. Just as RAW should be seen as a third horse.

To Galen - once you start talking about 10 bit, then (all else equal) don't expect to see any big difference in basic video as recorded. Any advantage is likely to be that it will allow greater manipulation later - assuming the fundamental quality of the image from the front end makes it worth it.

I suspect Alister is referring to a hypothetical extension to the AVC-HD spec - which would allow for 10 bit, 4:2:2, and better than standard AVC-HD compression. Theoretically, what he says would be correct - but the downside will be interframe *AND* AVC processing is likely to really up the computing power it will need.

Would it be worth it? It may be argued that it would hit a sweet spot - personally, I think it falls between the stools of XDCAM and XAVC. Once 10 bit and 4:2:2 start to really matter to a user, then it's probably best to stick with I-frame only. Yes, that will obviously mean a higher bitrate (100Mbs, so twice as much) but if 10 bit etc is really important, then the doubling of file size is less likely to matter.

And for a user who just wants basic broadcast standard and isn't worried about 10 bit, but is more worried about file size etc - that's where XDCAM is likely to remain optimal for a considerable time to come. My personal feeling is that a 50Mbs AVC-HD is more likely to give you the worst of both worlds rather than the best, but who knows what the manufacturers are cooking up at the moment?!

Obviously both memory cost is going down and computing power is going up. The former leads to file sizes being less of a problem, the latter to more complex codecs becoming ever more viable - taken together they are likely to see a steady growth in such as XAVC, and maybe less need for 50Mbs AND AVC? We'll see.