Brian Drysdale

You usually only need to use the monitor and use your eyes. However, if you want to use a meter you need a incident light meter to set up your lighting contrast. It's more useful on bigger setups, but you can use the incident meter as you'd use it on film. You don't need a spot meter, you can what you're getting on a well set up monitor. I'd use the monitor to set up the final exposure (in combination with zebras/waveform), making sure you're keeping any highlight details that you want.

None of the 1/3" cameras shoot 1080p, the HVX shoots 720p like the HD 100. However, you do have an option of 1080i, which the HD 100 doesn't have. I haven't used the HVX 200, so I can't comment on it. The HD 100 does have extremely good ergonomics and if you want to get used to (or if you're used to using) the layout of the higher end cameras the HD 100 is very similar. The spilt screen effect seems to have been sorted by JVC during quality control and they've now got their A version out. You'll need more than just a camera body, so factor in things like batteries into your budget.

Stephen, I remember reading about the DVW 970 around that time, but heard no more until late last year. The Sony Europe site still doesn't have a DVW 970 operation manual to download, even through there are manuals for the other cameras announced last year. Brian

Stephen, It took a while before you heard about the DigiBeta version being around. Could be they were announcing DVW 970 before they were ready. The DSR 450 seemed to be out a lot quicker. Could also be because it's a more mature market and also DigiBeta cameras tend to last longer, so don't get replaced so often. Brian

Hi, I've always found DigiBeta a good robust format. It suffered from a fashion point of view when people decided that DVCam was the format of choice for low budget features. One producer told me that DVCam looked more like film than DigiBeta. However, given how tight the budget was (British TV drama level) and they were down to counting the last hundred pounds by the end, saying they couldn't afford DigiBeta might have been more truthful. Brian

Phil, I was thinking of the PDW-530P, which can record MPEG IMX at up to 50 Mb/s. Looking around the compression seems to be 3.3:1 @ 50 Mb/s with this format - higher than Digital Beta. BTW I notice that there's now a MPEG IMX version of the DVW 970. Brian

Stephen, I keep asking our local rental company when they're going get one. No luck so far. Brian

An editor friend of mine has been running tests on the Varicam & HDW 750, but the camera he really raved about was the DVW 970, the new progressive Digibeta camera. Unfortunately, the format hasn't had a new camera for some time, so had fallen behind and the DVW 970 may have arrived too late with the new disk based formats now on the scene.

You should be able to get a used Ronford F4 for around that price. Very robust and good for 16mm film cameras (less so for long video cameras that need counterbalancing).

Yes, they seem to act as surfaces for the film to rub against when a roll is slightly dished. I suspect it's quieter than the film rubbing against the metal and also less friction.

You could try using Chinese lanterns with the bulb on a dimmer (to reduce the colour temperature and you can also give a slight flicker effect with the dimmer) or put CTO onto the lantern to give a soft fill. You can hang them over the set, or put one on a boom pole so that it moves around with the character. These work extremely well and have been used for lifting candle light scenes on a number of feature films. Another method is to rig a small light inside the candle powered by a battery that the actor carries around.. For a drama you don't want to be putting large amounts of gain. Avoid over exposing the highlights, you'll never get those back in post.

I tried to get the 13 x wide angle for the tests (without success), but it's on the requested equipment list for the productions. I've seen the tests done by the guys on DVInfo with the 13 x wide and it looks like it's really worth paying the extra. A friend, who had an XL series Canon, has bought the JVC and he loves it. If you're you're used to the high end cameras the JVC is totally natural to use. The focus assist really helps when using the LCD screens. It's also light enough to do all those PD150 type moves, but heavy enough to be be stable.

No, I'm just curious. I'm currently testing the JVC for some low budget features, but I did mention the Canon with the HD SDI into a hard drive as an interesting approach to the producer. However, given the timescale I don't think the hard drive would be an option. It would need to be fully set up and tested for shooting on productions with a tight schedule. So far, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, although the lens supplied with the camera isn't wonderful. The dealer is supposed to be supplying a 2/3" adapter, so I'm hoping to try out a SD Canon wide angle zoom on it.

Certainly fitting a hard drive that records 4.2.2 would really bring the Canon & JVC up closer to the 3.1.1 F900. With some clever working both the JVC and Canon could have a hard drive fitted. For one thing it could improve the hand hold capability of the Canon, which is poorly designed in this regard. It would also need to be something that's extremely robust and doesn't involve cabling up laptops and other add ons.

The XLH1 is 1080i not 1080p. None of the HDV cameras are 1080p. Certainly the Canon has more pixels on its sensors than the JVC. However, 720p seems to be pushing the current limits of the 1/3" ccd cameras and 1080p is (at present) only found on the larger chip cameras.

I suppose it depends if you're applying gain to improve the sensitivity of the camera or applying gain to apply noise. Applying gain in post won't get the image details that you didn't capture in the first place, it'll just lift the levels of you've managed to capture on tape plus the noise in the chain.

It's an extremely limited market, Betacam SP isn't used anymore for broadcast work in the UK (nor in the most of Europe I suspect) because of 16:9. It's still used in the USA because they still have 4 x 3 television. Basically, the digital formats have replaced the analogue Betacam SP, so very few people are going to hire someone with a Betacam SP kit. It's OK if you want to use it on your own productions, but you're much more likely to be hired as a cameraman with a DSR 500 or DSR570 than a BVW 300. A HDV camera would better buy as a professional camera.

Television studios also have smooth floors, so they can track using the cameras on the pedestals without the need for a grip or the dolly.

Yes, this is the PAL model.

Yes, this is a broadcast standard camera. However, you're limited to 4 x 3 (unless you crop in post), but they can produce really nice pictures. It's Betacam SP and that is still used in the USA for shooting, although in Europe with almost everything being 16 x 9 it's less common. If you're planning to just use it on your own stuff that's fine, but it'll cause difficulties if you're hoping to use it professionally in Europe - a friend has one that has been unused for 5 years. It's an easy camera to use and was commonly used by news crews. You'll need access to a Betacam SP player when you're capturing for post, because the camera doesn't playback for editing etc.

It produces rather clean looking pictures, but not as smooth looking as Digital Betacam. It's been used on a wide range of productions including low budget features. Unfortunately it's not as well built as the Betacam range of cameras and the viewfinder isn't wonderful. It's been replaced by the DSR 450 which would be worth looking at because of the option of shooting progressive and the more comprehensive menus. This company often shoots on the DSR 570 and have examples of commercials on their site: http://www.streetmonkey.tv/

I've never looked at them side by side, but the HDW 750 has a slightly more video quality than the F900. If you know the knee point and slope, together with the gamma table and other setting used on the HDW 750 you can check with the US rental company if they can match them. Unfortunately the menus are different, so there's not a straight transfer between them. The F900 has a smoother look compared to the HDW 750. However, I suspect you'd be OK if you're not inter cutting between the cameras in the same sequence, trying to match stuff in NY to material shot in Europe. If the cameras are shooting stand alone sequences this shouldn't be an issue. I'd talk to your colourist about any problems they think may occur.

Checking the details again, the Dolby Digital Cinema System is for digital projection, but allows the programming of shows with both digital & Film content. http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_libra...410_DCinema.pdf

Cinema Products no longer exists, the Steadicam is now made by Tiffen.

Yes, that's done with DTS and the Dolby Digital Cinema System, but most films still have older the Dolby analogue and digital optical sound tracks. Not forgetting plain optical sound.