It appears from your quote that in your research/thinking the DVCPROHD format is on par with the HDV format, but yet HDCAM is a "standard". From what I understand, the DVCPRO is on par with the HDCAM format, not HDV. I wouldn't call it "less than high end", DVCPROHD is, after all, a 100mbps format. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

*Forgive me if I took something out of context, but I only used the quote based on my question.

Jeremey: I don't put the two in the same catagory at all, others do (see Craigs comments above).. If I did, I wouldn't be shelling out over 25 grand for an HPX500 package when I already own a terrific (in my opinion) Canon XL H1 with three lenses and an A1 as a backup.

At many networks and most film festivals, HDCAM has become a "standard" for hi-def presentation - all I meant was that by dumping to HDCAM BEFORE you send them anything you stand a better chance of being taken seriously... D5, even better (but not for festivals).

Also, someone above commented that even 16mm has been shut out by the BBC.. I thinks that's a mistake (I know of two productions currently filming on Aatons for BBC) - They may have closed the door on STANDARD 16mm acquisition, but not on super16...

Steve: Thanks for the clarification! I, too, am about to purchase a HPX500 system and I am really looking forward to it. I have only had experience with DVCPRO and different analog tape formats, my experience with HDCAM is nil.

shooting for broadcast is far differant than shooting for the big screen. all you have to do for broadcast is have every frame of your footage fall within specs on a waveform. It has nothing to do with how the picture looks to the viewer.
My comments were stated with the thought of being blowup for large screen.

When looking at any companies "ring of fire" of cameras at the NAB booths. please keep in mind you are looking at signal off of the head. What you don't see is playback of recorded footage. THATs where the compression happens fellas, in the recording.

BBC will not accept your footage summitted on 16mm. IT must be in a digital format.

Most of the companies that buy and sell stock footage also will no longer accept film, but you can still shoot on film. They just no longer do any telecine, and to cut their costs only accept DI.

IT is my opinion that you should go with the highest quality that you can afford. All of these cameras are simply computers afterall, and I don't see anyone saying that want a slower computer.

HD-SR or HD-D5, HDCAM, HDPRO100, in that order, I think , in terms of what is recorded and what is thrown away.

Again, let me say that it's kinda like being gay in the military - "don't ask, don't tell"... But maybe we are missing something important in this discussion...

There's an article in the latest AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER about David Lynch shooting his latest feature with a PD150.. Go figure, he can get all the money he needs...

Arriflex just introduced an entirely new (and VERY expensive) super16 camera... Aaton just completely revamped their super16 camera (VERY expensive as well)... So someone somewhere thinks super16 is still viable...

In my case, I just got a 30min documentary, MY NAME IS BELLE, which was originated on HDV, accepted for broadcast by NETA, (Public Television syndication)... My film ACCIDENTAL HERO, originated in DVCAM, was on the PBS national program schedule in prime-time... My film BEYOND BARBED WIRE (also on the prime-time schedule) was shot in super16, transferred to BetaSP, conformed to DigiBeta and blown up to 35mm (at 4MC) from the DigiBeta master for film festivals and limited theatrical release..

There are many ways to skin a cat - right now I'm chosing DVCPRO HD because I, personally, myself, and not some other disenfranchised person, like the look of footage I've seen shot 720/24p on Panasonic cameras and want to shoot my next doc that way...nuff said...

so your shooting with the Varicam ;) Good idea. I'll make you a great deal :)

Really all kidding aside congrats on your work being picked up.