Why do we need to bypass at all?

[Finn Yarbrough]

This has bothered me for a while.

Why don't we have any ENG cameras that will ProRes 422 (or any high-quality equivalent) record directly on to SSD's as their medium?

And why would it cost any more than the current price of the camera plus the price of the external recorder?

I other words, why not just replace the in-camera processor with whatever processor the recorders are using? Why connect a separate device with an SDI cable, with its own battery, bracket, etc...?

I don't understand the limitations.

[Dale Guthormsen]

Even HD Cam is a 1440 x 1080 image isn't it??

I reckon it is about cost of production/ image trade off.

Cameras that record fully uncompressed images start out quite a bit higher than the best prosumer cam with a recorder.

multiply bigger chips and hugely more processing in camera power right??


I bet the prices of these cameras come down because of the competitive recorder market!!!

Also people seem obcessive compulsive about better image quality, sharper resolution.

you can't afford a 30,000 dollar rig this is the equalizer, even if it aint!!



I think your point is well taken.

Isn't it funny, that people want to put noise in a video to make it film like, but then they want to go to higher resolution for picture quality which would then have to be smoothed out so to speak!??

some things still boggle my mind!!

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Finn Yarbrough

This has bothered me for a while.

Why don't we have any ENG cameras that will ProRes 422 (or any high-quality equivalent) record directly on to SSD's as their medium?

And why would it cost any more than the current price of the camera plus the price of the external recorder?

I other words, why not just replace the in-camera processor with whatever processor the recorders are using? Why connect a separate device with an SDI cable, with its own battery, bracket, etc...?

I don't understand the limitations.

ProRes is an obvious one - it would limit the market to those using FCP without a further conversion down the track. That is why Sony and Panasonic went down their own proprietary route which works with just about any NLE, Mac or PC.

Secondly the major camera makers have a huge vested interest in their high end cameras and they want to establish points of difference, and these don't stop at things like lenses, chip size, electronics, ruggedness etc - they also include things like recording formats. This is partly driven by cost and by marketing but with the advent of Convergent Design, Atomos etc those lines are getting blurred anyway.

The third reason is reliability - it is much harder to spec reliable media for higher recording rates. Sony have specified very fast SxS media for something which basically records at 35Mb/s or 50Mb/s in their higher end models - why? Virtually eliminates the chance of dropped frames, corrupt streams etc (some users might argue with that, but that is the principle behind it). The codec chip in the EX1 is the same as the codec chip in the Convergent design Nanoflash (there are lots of other differences but it is the Sony chip), but Sony elected to restrict recording rates to 35Mb/s as a good compromise between quality, recording space and reliability. As technology advances these things become less of a problem - faster media at cheaper prices is making things like external recorders far more attractive to the end user.

At some point the whole equation will tip and the end solution that you envisage will start to appear on the market at the prosumer level. Tape is dying fast and virtually evey new camera to appear on the market is solid state based so it only stands to reason that recording rates will be employed as a simple marketing tool like pixel count that consumers can understand.