PBS POV 2013 Documentary Filmmaking Equipment Survey

[Terry Nixon]

I took a few screen shots from the PBS POV Documentary Equipment Survey.

Below is a link to the entire survey.

POV Documentary Equipment Survey

Some of the numbers that stood out for me:

28% have 0-5 years experience

45% Canon share with the doc vertical with the C300/C100 and 5D/7D Cameras

54% Sennheiser on Audio Equipment

76% Final Cut Pro compared to 12% Avid Media Composer

[Mark Koha]

Its all about the cost of the tools. I am surprised the C300 had a bigger share than the 5D.

[Mark Koha]

...but now that I think about it more, I'm sure the more experienced people are using things like the C300 where the 0-5 years experience group is probably rolling the 5D's and renting RED cameras.

[Mark Koha]

...and now that I actually look at the graph, I see the versions of 5D's are separate so I'll shut up now.

[Craig Chartier]

The C300 is an far better doc tool than the rest of the pack ( even other Canon Products ) great low light. Native 850 iso, 422 recording, Broadcast ready, great audio handling, long battery life, well built. No clip time limit. small format body. Its main drawback for Doc work is the same thing that makes it so great. THat large chip. Doc work is hard enough, trying to capture the events as they are happening , sometimes only once, and having it all in focus is hard to do. THere is no "cut!" and "Back to one please the DP missed the focus mark." in the Doc world.

The Picture use on the article is a bit misleading. Doc shooters don't usually run with Cinema Primes. too heavy and too costly.

Else where on the article a better list of glass is offered. By the way, Sigma glass is making great strides in the level of lenses they are making. at a much lower price point.

[Alister Chapman]

Some interesting things from that article. For example DSLR's being just about the most popular cameras but the most popular NLE being FCP 7 which can't cut AVCHD easily or directly.

Not sure I'd read too much into the survey. Far too small a sample and no idea of what sectors or areas the respondents are from, broadcast, corporate, online, enthusiast????

What I'd really like to see would be a survey on "what equipment do you use and how much profit do you make". That would be telling, separate the enthusiasts from those actually making a long term living from production and then look at what gear actually makes a decent return on investment. A survey could result in 100% usage of camera "A" from a sample where no one actually makes any money.

[Al Bergstein]

It's gratfiying to see that almost one in three have less than five years in the industry. My guess on the c300 use is due to broadcast acceptable codec out of the box. I would love to shoot with one but the pricing puts the c100 far more in the sweet spot. It does mean that the 4:2:2 requirement is changing unless these folks are shooting onto Ninja's or the like. Goes to show that the folks doing this haven't left FCP7 yet. Clunky input process but it still works just fine.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Al Bergstein

My guess on the c300 use is due to broadcast acceptable codec out of the box.

Yes, but a lot more as well. Sensor optimised for video. Likewise ergonomics - whilst preserving the best of what DSLRs are appreciated for.

It does mean that the 4:2:2 requirement is changing unless these folks are shooting onto Ninja's or the like.

Well, there have never been any laws about codec requirements - only recommendations. And they have never been too hard and fast, even within broadcasters - make a good case for using equipment which doesn't meet the spec for valid reasons (and "I can't afford it" isn't one of them! :-) ) and exceptions may be made.

And they only apply to broadcast, because of the likelihood of multiple recompressions along the chain.

But if your doc is intended for broadcast, then in overall budget terms then surely the difference between a decent DSLR and a C300 body isn't that much? Not when averaged out over the likely lifetime of the equipment? Which I suppose is a similar point to Alisters.......

[Mark Koha]

I'd say about 90% of news shot in the field around me is shot on either ex1's or ex3's and don't those use a 4:2:0 codec? So yeah, about that broadcast quality standard......unless I am missing something which is totally possible.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Mark Koha

I'd say about 90% of news shot in the field around me is shot on either ex1's or ex3's and don't those use a 4:2:0 codec? So yeah, about that broadcast quality standard......unless I am missing something which is totally possible.

News is a different animal than episodic or verité non-news (doco etc) for broadcasters. In my former market (Winnipeg, Manitoba) standard definition news was split 50/50 between stations on BetaSX (4:2:2 at 18mbps Interframe MPEG Long-GOP) and DVCam (4:1:1 at 25mbps Intraframe DCT) but they "wouldn't" accept DVCam originated material for long form doco stuff as the primary source... so we "bumped up" to BetaSP for distribution!

True story... and yes, an engineer could certainly tell the difference...

I wonder if Texas Media Systems has a large inventory of Canon gear to push.

[Paul R Johnson]

As has been said - the critical element is WHO they asked. I wonder f the documentary makers who have been at it longer maybe didn't know about the survey, and are just plodding on with their ⅔" kit blissfully unaware it's not 'cool' anymore, but because they're busy and in demand, they don't read forums, or get kit lust any longer.

Looking at the people I bump into here in the UK who have been doing this a long time, then for their broadcast, satellite and documentary work for the names, they're still shooting as they used to - worrying about card formats and add ons, but not considering getting rid of their big investment in favour of bigger sensors - at the moment.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Mark Koha

I'd say about 90% of news shot in the field around me is shot on either ex1's or ex3's and don't those use a 4:2:0 codec? So yeah, about that broadcast quality standard......unless I am missing something which is totally possible.

If you're talking about local news, that's a different animal. Local broadcasters don't seem to mind shooting video below the generally accepted broadcast standard 50mbps, 4:2:2. The stations in my city use JVC HM-700s, EX1 & PMW-320s and HPX370s. The 370s just recently began shooting in HD instead of SD, and that may be in AVC/Intra 50.

I work audio with a camera op (F800) who has lots of national broadcast clients, and he always shoots in HDCAM 50mbps, 4:2:2. He always gives his clients the maximum quality available.

[Brian Drysdale]

News has traditionally been shot at a lower technical standard than programme production. The BBC used to shoot Betacam for news, while programmes were Betacam SP and then Digibeta.

[Alister Chapman]

I don't recall the BBC ever using Betacam. They went straight from BVU and High Band to BetaSP. There was no real cost benefit for Betacam v BetaSP and there were never any one piece non SP Betacam cameras, only bulky dockable units using the BVV1. Perhaps you mean DVCAM which was used for news and current affairs for a very long time while Digibeta was used for higher end production.

But yes there are often different standards for news. Right now under the EBU guidelines you are allowed to use 35Mb/s and 1/3" sensors for news, but it must be news, not current affairs or other forms of journalism (for example magazine type news shows).