Pro SD camera vs Pro-sumer HD camera
 

Considering purchasing a Sony DSR 500 W broadcast quality camera. I'm told that up-rezing a high quality 16 x 9 native SD image looks just as good, if not better than the images being captured from the pro-sumer line of HD cameras. I currently own (2) Canon XH-A1 HDV cameras. I'm disappointed with the consumer level attributes. The benefit of the DSR camera is all of the pro features.

The poll is open!

Well, even though I patently disagree with the assertion, what are you calling "pro-sumer"? What kind of images do you need to capture with the camera?

Well, Prosumer imaging defined as 1080i @ 60 HDV or XDCAM mpeg2 or DVC PRO HD shot on 1/3" sensor cameras.
Professional: With the DSR-500 WS, talking about DVCAM SD 16 x 9, shot on 2/3 CCD imagers and expensive glass.

Mine and others definition of prosumer also constitutes all the cheap compromises in camera build that we all deal with. Whether it be on the hardware side, i.e. chinsy knobs (or the lack of them necessitating menu searches), switches, battery doors and springs (canon A-1), 4 pin firewire, useless viewfinders that don't provide accurate ability to focus and stay in dialed in, Lanc controllers for zoom and focus. If you've ever used a real zoom and focus servo kit on a broadcast camera, that's the level of touch I'm after. A camera that weighs enough to be even recognized by the tripod it's sitting on. Most of the 6 pound cameras don't engage the counterbalance and other tripod features. Makes it even tougher to pan and tilt smoothly (even Sachtler).

BTW, I realize that pro-sumer cameras are used to acquire broadcast footage. My question is related to whether upconverted 16 x 9 SD footage properly shot from a Pro camera would stand up to HD prosumer footage shot under the same conditions (considering the larger sensors and better glass).

The DSR-500 WS is getting a little long in the tooth, and it's DV25 codec even with 2/3" CCD at 16:9 looks like squat up-rezed to HD. As me how I know? Your XH-A1 looks much better in HD.If you are looking to spend $8K on an old box like the 500, your money would be much better spent on a modern HD video camera, or an HDSLR package if you need shallower DOF than a 1/3", 1/2", or 2/3" sensor could hope to provide at that budget.

All the Best!

If you're calling XDCamHD like the EX1/EX3 Prosumer (which I do as well) then there is NO WAY uprezzed SD footage is going to get even close. Not a prayer.

I agree as long as it's shot well.

OK, thanks for the feedback gents.

BTW, looking at used DSR around 4k. (I know the pitfalls of used as well).

David,
Yes the HPX 370 is an obvious choice for 8k upwards. However, I primarily do theatre work. CMOS=flash banding.

For delivery in SD, the 500 is a SERIOUS contender. For upres to HD, not so much.

I don't have any solid evidence to back that up but I do tend to agree.
SD is so dead, it's a very dodgy investment to make, this is why people selling Digibetas are lucky to get £2000-3000 for them.
I think a seller would have to be virtually giving it away for me to buy an SD camera. But then again, everyone's use is different.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
Steve

I just don't understand this thread at all. Sure, the DSR 500 has 2/3" chips, but they are older technology so not necessarily cleaner than newer and smaller imagers. There must be an interchangeable-lens HD camera in your budget range. This camera uses the DV codec. Get real! There are all sorts of HD codecs better than DV.

Who is the source of the SD upres is better than HD? Do they also say LP is better than CD because the scratches and dust make it sound "warmer"? If a retro-look is what you desire, a tube camera on analog tape is what you are after with ghosting on bright lights and tracking errors applying warmth.

If your cameras aren't heavy enough to activate the springs in your tripod, you have the wrong springs installed. New springs or a new tripod are going to be more cost effective than a heavier camera. Weight can always be added to a smaller camera, but that big camera will always be a burden. And concerning flash banding, it will take a lot less time to white frame some flashes than it will to upres SD to HD.

Take your current budget, sell one of the XH-A1, then put it together on a camera with better chips and a manual lens. Heck, the Sony Z7 would be a big step up from the XH-A1.

Hey Man.. for someone who lives in Hawaii, your kind of tight :-)

I'm just looking for other opinions on a proposition. Looks like I've got about 1/2 of a vote for DV so far !!

Looks like you've already convinced yourself of what camera you're going to get. Best of luck with your shooting.

For shooting and delivery in a SD format then the 500 will kick and then add a Nano. For HD delivery there are better cameras available. Try the Sony EX1 for HD or even the DSLR range now.

Cheers

For inter-changeable lens, get the EX3, which btw, resolves over 1000 Lines. No matter what you do, no SD camera can resolve that many lines.

For Flash Band, the Sony ClipBrowser software EASILY removes 99% of FB from XDCAM EX footage. In my experience, it has been 100% accurate at removing FB, and it worked flawlessly during a few shots that were zooming during the flash.

For an EX3, the Sachtler FSB 8 is perfect if you plan on adding a mattebox, on-camera 7-10" LCD or a teleprompter. Otherwise, the FSB 6 works great (I have the FSB 6 and an EX1).

I don't know what you are talking about when you claim that a 6 lb camera cannot be used properly on a heavy-duty tripod. In Chicago, NBC and Telemundo both use HPX170's on Video 18-SB heads and Hot Pod tripods which cost more than their cameras. And at a recent press conference, several camera guys were in love with my EX1 and playing with it. All of them said (except NBC guy) that they would absolutely prefer lugging around an 8lb camera and a 10 lb tripod rather than their 50+ lbs of camera/tripod.

I have both DSR500 and XHA1. If you're delivering for the web or SD, the DSR wins hands-down due to the audio being so much better, and at the same SD resolution, the image is better, too. It's also better in low light. But once you go past 853x480, the XHA1 wins.

Batteries play a big part in the equation, too. One little 970 in the Canon lasts all day vs. hauling around 140 Hytrons and a charger....

But the audio difference is huge... it's the only reason I still use the DSR.

yes, I know about the size and weight. How long do you think the plastic cameras would last in the field? NOT VERY LONG. The first time an important event was missed because the plastic battery door or spring breaks, that will be the end of that experiment.
The emphasis nowadays is more about imagers and file formats than anything. Notice very little discussion about lens quality, build and durability. These parameters used to be important when purchasing a camera. However, we do live in a disposable society more than ever.

I've owned a number of cameras at different levels, both still and video. And have never broken a single one of them in the field. If someone is prone to breaking gear, or treats their gear harshly, then you're right. A more durable camera is most welcome.

Our market is changing rapidly every 12-18 months. This is no longer a field where you can buy a $30k camera and expect it to be viable in 3-6 years. Even glass is like this now. We are quickly moving away from the 1/3" and 2/3" cameras. So those lenses will become boat anchors in short order.

Unlike you, I've heard PLENTY of talk about lens quality. But frankly, the common person participating here isn't buying a $20k 2/3" lens, or PL mount lens. Some are, but most are not. The truth of the matter is that the medium we are recording to is not capable of resolving the differences between decent glass and excellent glass. This isn't film. Yes, distortion and C.A. are readily seen. But for most people, spending half a year's salary on a lens to correct issues that their clients don't see isn't a good investment.

So you are saying that a tape camera is inherently more reliable than one with little to no moving parts (ie EX1/3)?

At least in the Chicago HD broadcast market, I can easily tell when a news channel has used an SD camera because it looks horrendous due to their up-sizing it.

As far as the EX1's reliability, these cameras can take a serious beating. I rented one a few months ago that had some serious cosmetic damage but still functioned flawlessly.

Something else to consider: getting an EX3 is a long-term investment whereas the DSR-400 is more a stop-gap.

With a 1/2" chip, even that is questionable. Maybe if you add a Nanoflash or KiPro to it. But someone would have to hand me an SD camera for nearly free for me to touch it. At this point, I wouldn't buy a 2/3" SD camera for over $500. And the ONLY reason I'd pay that much for one is for insurance for those clients that feel put off by seeing something like my EX1 or T2i on their shoot.

I deliver our in-house videos at 720p, I deliver my movies at 1080 or 720, I deliver for the web at 720. I bought the EX1 shortly after they were released and I've never even had it in an SD mode. HDV mode once, but never SD. I can downres to SD in-camera or outboard in real time if I really want that, all while writing HD to SxS. I've done it once at a conference when they wanted to piggyback my recording for the projector at a conference.

SD is all but dead in the US. Walk into Best Buy and see how many SD televisions you can buy.

An unfair pronouncement: BROADCAST SD is FAR from dead, even if we can no longer buy SD only televisions.

Well Ok,......I'm going to casually slip out the back door. Drinks are on me. You boys enjoy the evening.....

True. Parallel broadcasting is happening nationally and many smaller stations cannot afford to make the jump. Our local city and PBS are still SD. But all the national affiliates are broadcasting parallel.

I know HDV cameras which are used for broadcast work and they only shoot SD, not HD.

There was a review I read on Amazon for Paul Wheeler's book on HD Cinematography about 3 or 4 years ago that said HDCAM was obsolete, for a format in that condition it still seems to be live and kicking and probably is still used more than the mentioned replacement. It's off spring, HDCAM SR, is being used with the new Arri Alexa on one TV drama series, one advantage being they didn't need a data wrangler.

People may buy HD televisions, but how many people are actually watching HD on them? Some people are confused and believe they are watching HD, but in fact are only watching SD. In many parts of the world you can only get SD.

BTW PAL can look pretty good on a HD television as long as the screen isn't too large or you sit too close.

I really don't know what this statement means...

HDCamSR bears practically zero resemblance to HDCam other than the name.

Which is why I said "in the US". And yes not everyone understand when they are watching HD or SD signals. Compounded by the fact that many of today's DVD and BluRay players upscale standard DVDs so well. But I guarantee you, if you pop in your VHS copy of Indiana Jones, and then the BluRay, it's going to look vastly different. And Joe Blow home viewer is going to see it instantly.

Many things look pretty good if maintain your distance from them... ;)

I tend to agree with just about everything Perrone has posted in this thread.
This includes his thoughts about prosumer type cameras are going to be prone to breaking with field use - I think most of them are well upto it unless you hammer nails in with them. The old Canon EX-1 Hi8 camera was very plasticky but just went on and on and on.
Steve

They use them to shoot only DV not HDV.

[/QUOTE]HDCamSR bears practically zero resemblance to HDCam other than the name.[/QUOTE]

True, but it's still in that bigger camera, 1/2" tape, non data style of kit derived from Betacam origins.

[/QUOTE] And Joe Blow home viewer is going to see it instantly.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, but Blu Ray isn't doing that well against the ye olde DVDs.

[/QUOTE]Many things look pretty good if maintain your distance from them... ;)[/QUOTE]

Same with HD televisions, after a certain distance there mightn't be much to choose because the eye can't resolve the extra detail. I'm not saying SD is better, but it's easy on forums to forget that many people and even companies don't jump at the latest gadget or format on the market.

I think MANY people would jump at the chance to have 1080p, 4:4:4 recording at 10bit, with 12 available tracks of 24bit audio. Sadly, the recorders for HDCamSR are well over $50k, and the tapes are over $100 per hour. Even on big shoots, this is falling out of favor quickly. Options like the Codex and others are far more favorable. And if 4:4:4 isn't needed, then the Nanoflash and the Wafian are in the running as well. I suspect one could purchase a Nanoflash for what it would cost for a week's rental of an HDCamSR deck. And you wouldn't have to pay a PA to lug it around all week either.

Actually, it's doing just fine. Even in the midst of a worldwide recession, sales are brisk, media costs have come down quickly, and burner costs have moved mainstream faster than DVD did. I bought some BluRay's last week at the local Best Buy, and noticed that what started as a half-rack display (BluRay) now has nearly equal floor space to DVDs. I suspect by Christmas, the scales will have tipped to BluRay. We are already seeing the $100 BluRay players. I predicted we'd see the $150 major brand players by the summer, and we've seen that too. I have no doubt we'll see $100-$125 units from Sony, Samsung, LG, and others by the holiday season.

The HDCAM SR currently has advantages on tight schedule TV dramas and that's where you often find it. On these the recorder is just another bit of camera kit that doesn't require another person just to carry it. Mostly it's used in 4:2;2, the 4:4:4 being used more for effects. In the longer term the ProRes option on the Alexa and possibly the RED cameras should replace the HDCAM SR on these productions, but who knows.

Everything has advantages and disadvantages, one cost can be off laid by another, perhaps not helped by an industry that is conservative and risk averse.

With Blu Ray the problem may be the higher cost of the discs rather than the players - just looking at a top UK site selling both. Blu Ray is around 50% more expensive, the DVDs being the same price they've been for some time. In the longer term they should catch up, but the prices will have to drop for the sales volume to increase significantly, especially in a recession. It could be the higher profit margins that interest the retailer than the volume.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/enterta...-expectations/

Shhhhh...be quiet....Steve Jobs might hear you :p

Don't worry. He can't hear me with the sounds of cash register drawers ringing in his ears day and night...

Didn't you know...you can't pay for an iPad with cash.

I'm not wise in the ways of the iLife....