Should I let 4K be a deciding factor?

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

If we look at codecs, and not HD vs 4K at the moment. Does anyone know how AVCHD compares to XDCam EX and Canons MXF? How does the various codecs hold up in post and further compression before being broadcast or shown on any medium, web, DVD and Blu Ray?

I have been following a different thread on what camera is the most popular and I believe it was Alister who said it would be interesting to see how much the different investments would hold up long term, which is what I have been thinking about as well.

What I mean is I would like to actually make a decent income with my camera and an investment that would pay off in the end.

[Matt Davis]

I've been using AVCHD and XDCAM (the 35 Mbit 4:2:0 version) alongside each other for a while now.

In most situations, AVCHD holds up very well, pretty much equal with XDCAM. Only when things get very intense on the motion does AVCHD get a little more ropey than XDCAM, but that tends to be on the shots that hit the cutting room floor.

One also needs to take into consideration that the XDCAM cameras I'm using are quite old - the EX1R has quite a 'texture' associated with it. Not objectionable, but it's very 'there'. The FS100 I had for a while was far less noisy and in the right conditions could boast better pictures than the EX1, but its highlights and skin tones, and its general lack of detail on comparison to the EX1 let it down overall. The FS700 was a very good match, and quite frankly for most work destined for the web, the internal AVCHD internal recordings were absolutely fine.

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Yesterday I found a PDF from the NRK with their new specifications when delivering for broadcast. If I read correctly it now seems that what is considered HD is 1080 and no longer 720 as it used to be. And also that cameras in general would have to be 1/2 inch sensors or bigger and shooting at 50mbps or more. They seem to be following the same guidelines as the BBC.

I my rethink my decision and actually go with the F5. This should make me future proof and broadcast accepted. However, I want my new cam to replace my EX1R as I cannot afford both cameras. What in your opinion would be my best lens choice? I do not always have the opportunity to swap lenses fast or move from my position. This is especially true when working for corporate as sometimes for safety reasons we have to stand at a distance.

The other alternative, although locking myself into one system, would actually be the Canon C300 PL with a used Angenieux 25-250. I found it at:

Visual Products - Equipment For Sale - Lenses - Zoom Lenses - 35mm Zoom Lenses - Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9

It was supposedly the work horse back in the 70`s. Any advice appreciated as I have to make my decision soon.

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Well. I just ordered the Angenieux 25-250 lens and having seen the C300 for myself now, I must say I was impressed by how small and compact it actually is.

The Sony FS700 is quite a bit larger and bulkier than I thought. Especially with the Odyssey mounted to it. It could make a nice shoulder mounted camera when you build it up, but I really don`t want to do that. It amazes me how much you could actually spend on accessories on a large sensor camera to overcome the sometimes awkward ergonomics. I wonder if some camera manufacturers forget to ask the users of their products or if this is business strategy to sell more.

Do I need 4K? Not sure. Do I want 4K? Sure. But not at any expense. I saw this rather interesting piece made by Rick Young from Moviemachine called: Rick Young: Why we need RAW, why we need Compressed

And it made me realize something he said. If you shoot 50 hours of raw material think about how much time you would spend in post. And for me shooting documentaries that would bring the costs up significantly. Also shooting 4K would bring up the question on what storage media to choose and how much. For the time being I would not be able to make more money with 4K equipment.

I need to work quickly and efficiently and I sure don`t want to spend a fortune on accessories. So I have bought a Blackmagic Cinema Camera for the times I want to shoot raw and in controlled setups. At the current price point it is a bargain. I will be buying a Canon C300 as well, unless there is something new at NAB. And even if there is I have to make a decision at some point anyway. There will always be something new. Now I have to decide whether to get the EF or PL model.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

I my rethink my decision and actually go with the F5. This should make me future proof and broadcast accepted. However, I want my new cam to replace my EX1R as I cannot afford both cameras. What in your opinion would be my best lens choice?

The other alternative, although locking myself into one system, would actually be the Canon C300 PL with a used Angenieux 25-250.

The lens you mention is pretty slow by todays standards (T3.9), and does it have any power servo on the zoom?

Are you aware of the optical convertors which will let a 2/3" lens be used on a s35 camera? In that case, get a normal 2/3" lens (with good zoom range, power zoom etc) and use via the adaptor. Operationally, to the cameraman, there is no noticeable difference between using in such a way, and using on a 2/3" camera.

(Technically, it behaves as if the focal length is multiplied 2.7x, and the f stop is 2.7 stops less. But because (all else equal) the sensor is correspondingly larger, then for angle of view, depth of field, low light performance the factors all cancel out.)

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

Do I need 4K? Not sure. Do I want 4K? Sure. But not at any expense. I saw ........
And it made me realize something he said. If you shoot 50 hours of raw material think about how much time you would spend in post. And for me shooting documentaries that would bring the costs up significantly. Also

But get a 4K camera and you don't need to use it in 4K. Or at least - not all the time. But if it's 4K CAPABLE it's possible to think of using it normal HD mode for most of a project - but using it in 4K mode for certain scenes if you think they may have far more future value than most of the other material. Or if 4K may give you more post options for just those sequences.

Get (say) an F5 and you don't have to use it in 4K mode. You may use it HD for 95% of the time, 4K for 5% - but that 5% may be critical, and 95% HD the rest of the time is unaffected. Or maybe most projects are HD, but one may really benefit from 4K?

Get an HD only camera such as the C300, and those options are lost.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

If we look at codecs, and not HD vs 4K at the moment. Does anyone know how AVCHD compares to XDCam EX and Canons MXF? How does the various codecs hold up in post and further compression before being broadcast or shown on any medium, web, DVD and Blu Ray?

Simplistically, AVCHD is not considered suitable for normal broadcast acquisition, XDCAM-EX is suitable for "journalism", and XDCAM 422 is cleared for all normal broadcast acquisition. That's not to say you can't get away with a lower tier on some occasions, and not to say better than XDCAM 422 may be desirable on other occasions, but as a general rule it's not too bad.

The other thing with AVC-HD is it needs more processing power to edit natively, so although you may not see too much quality difference between it and XDCAM EX, it may make your editing etc hardware perform worse. That's one of the prices to be paid for the lower filesizes.