OT: End of Prosumer Camcorders???

I think the 5D & 7D are complete game changers, you have to use these cameras to see the amazing quality. However there are some circumstances when they don't work like shooting when other camera flashes are happening & the old dreaded rolling shutter wobble.

Take a look at this opener I edited for the Snooker. All shot on a Canon5DmkII by Colin Nuttall, amazing depth of field. No colour correction at all.

You can see the full 1080p version on Vimeo

Sunday Night Snooker Opener, Grand Prix 2009 from Idustrial Revolution on Vimeo.

one quick question for you...

Can you give me a quick summary of your workflow? I'm assuming you didn't do the editing on an H.264 timeline...

Brian

Wow.
Incredible picture.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Stuart Hooper] "Also, on the 30p issue, Canon has announced they will be bringing 24p to the camera in a firmware update..."

Yeah, right. Watch Canon make it an actual 24fps, and not 23.976. I predict those geniuses will once again step on a very tender portion of the male anatomy with the golf shoes.

You wanna do TV production on a still camera? Fine. I'll wait until the same image quality comes to a proper TV camera.

Have fun overcoming the obstacles that Canon camera places in your path.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[Brian Pitt] "Do Canon/Panasonic/Sony prosumer camera even stand a chance with the advancements in SLR technology? "

Sure they do, as long as the people at Canon persist in keeping their heads stuck up a Very Undesirable Place To Be On Their Anatomy.

The controls on those Canon cameras aren't placed in the right spots to be extremely useful for motion photography. Somebody's making a rig to overcome that little issue, but why should you have to overcome such a shortcoming? Furthermore, the rig is CUMBERSOME: not something you want in a supposed game-changer.

Those cameras record in a codec that very few editing systems can use without conversion. Not very handy.

And finally, the geniuses at Canon set up those cameras to shoot at 30fps. Not Film's 24, not NTSC's 23.976, not PAL's 25, not NTSC's 29.97, but 30. It isn't a natural frame rate for ANYTHING. That tiny little difference in frame rate can be a right royal pain in the body part of your choice under a LOT of production circumstances. "Oh, but you can easily change the frame rate of the footage to 29.97." Yeah, well, why should you HAVE to? Stupid......

So: it makes drop-dead gorgeous pictures, but the camera's hard to operate, it shoots at the wrong frame rate, and you can't easily edit the video.

Big stinkin' bargain.

If a proper TV camera manufacturer got its mitts on the technology, you can darned well bet those three tiny issues would be settled, and you'd REALLY have something. But right now, you've only got something with potential and a host of pitfalls.


Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[Vince Becquiot] "But why complain, it's a still camera after all, with the nice added capability to shoot video. "

Because there are those out there operating under the delusion that it's an actual and proper TV production tool. There are some fools who actually think they can use it and it alone, that's why.

It's a TV toy.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[Peter Wiggins] "Sorry but you are so wrong."

Baloney.

If Sony or Panasonic came out with a video camera that could accept interchangeable Canon glass and had the same image quality -- but laid out like a real video camera -- you'd drop that Canon SLR like a hot potato.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

Understanding all the practical limitations and caveats of the changing paradigms, and that at the very least these are specialty cameras and not be-all solutions to shooting everyday TV and movies, I wonder if you have had any notice or feedback on the Panasonic entry--

http://www.electronicsinfoline.com/News/New_Gadgets/Digital_Camera/panasoni...

It seems to do 24p and we've been happy with our DVCPROHD production tools. Yes, I know this is 4/3 Live MOS and AVCHD, but there is a manufacturer history of bringing useful products to the fray.

For our modest-budget indie projects and docs, it is very appealing to think we could sometimes get some serious depth of field, low-light clarity and better color depth for this price. And oh yes, snap some quality behind-the-scenes images for promotion purposes and press kits.

I'm with you 100%. And I understand why some people have a hard time accepting new technology. They have invested tens, sometimes hundred of thousands on gear/technology that has or possibly will become obsolete and replaced by less expensive, more efficient, higher quality gear.

He's slamming Canon SLR technology and workflow...but guess what??? It is JUST hitting the market. Give it a little bit of time and see what happens. At the end of the day, if I can get a better looking picture out of a 5D than I can with a Panasonic DVCPro HD rig, guess which one I'm going with?

Brian

on the 7D...

Full HD Video is captured at 1920 x 1080 resolution at 30p (29.97), 24p (23.976) or 25p frames per second, for up to 4GB per clip. Movies are saved as .MOV files and can be viewed in Full HD with HDMI output. Other recording sizes include HD at 1280 x 720 (50p / 60p (59.94) fps) or SD/VGA at 640 x 480 (50p / 60p (59.94) fps).

Brian

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/it.A/id.591/.f

pretty good for a toy...

Brian

[Brian Pitt] "pretty good for a toy... "

....as long as you don't need easy access to the iris or a viewfinder, I suppose it is.

You can also put pontoons on a Corvette, but that doesn't turn it into a boat.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[John Davidson] "Obviously you haven't worked with the 7D. 24p is actually 23.98, as it should be..."

Well, that's just lovely... but doesn't anybody GET IT?

Canon knows how to make video cameras! Everybody and their dog shot on an XL1 at one point or another! Remember those?

Now they've got this reportedly great-looking imaging system for video -- a technology they've worked with before -- and what do they do with it? They put it in a STILL CAMERA , for heaven's sake! Why? Aren't you the least bit curious about that? As a camera consumer, doesn't that annoy you AT ALL?

"No, it's remarkable new technology, therefore I must support its existence by voting for it with my hard-earned dollars."

Never mind that you can't operate it to get the maximum utility out of it, as you could with a Canon product that's now five years old. You're just going to blindly take whatever Canon deigns to mete out to you, I guess. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

You're portraying me as some sort of Luddite. Yet I say this: Canon hasn't taken the technology far enough... certainly not as far as it could! Does that sound like a Luddite? I say that Canon is short-changing the person who works with video cameras, and apparently those people are dumb enough to go along with it. People seem to have forgotten that Canon knows how to make a video camera.

Take the blinders off, pal: Canon could have given you a LOT MORE than the glorified still camera you now hold in your hand.

I hope you're happy with it, and I hope you're happy with the company that suckered you into buying it.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[John Davidson] "Of course Canon has great 'video' cameras. Those are completely different beasts. There's a sacrifice to size, and that's a reduction in features. A benefit is, you don't have to set up a 100k shoot to get cinematic style HD video. "

Who says anything about spending $100K? Here, let me set up a hypothetical situation with a Canon engineer:

Y'know, Ms. Canon Engineer, this 7D is one heck of a video camera! What do you say we make a few changes to make it a little more useful?

• Can we modify the body a little bit so we put it on our shoulder, and give it an eyepiece viewfinder?
• Okay if we have a swing-out screen so we can hold the camera at odd angles and still see the picture?
• I'd like to be able to mount it on a plate so it's easy to put on a tripod or a jib... can we do that?
• Can we put the vital camera controls up front and on the operator's side?
• This thing's really light! Can you put a handle on the top so I can hand-hold it really low to the ground?
• How about a couple of different video outputs... could one be an HDMI, perhaps?
• I LOVE the interchangeable lenses! Can we fix so we can also put a servo zoom on the front, too?
• You know what would be really handy? A couple of balanced audio inputs with mic/line switches and an audio output so we can monitor what we record.
• 4GB is a little on the light side... do you think we could boost up the storage a bit? Okay, I'll deal with H.264.

Is there anything in that list that constitutes a reduction in features?
Are there a couple-three things in the list that would make it much better for shooting video?
Are there any additions that contribute greatly to either size or weight?
Are there any additions that contribute greatly to purchase price?


No? So how come they're not there? It's not like Canon didn't know how to do this stuff already, is it? It's just that you're anxious to shoot the pictures it makes, no matter what form it takes.




[John Davidson] "You're making the crow you might have to eat later unnecessarily large. "

Oh, let's see what Canon introduces in the next year or two before we make that assessment, shall we? I bet you buy it, too..........

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

I hope you guys are enjoying your argument, because I sure am. From my perspective you've all really opened a door to this issue and shed some great light on some points that I hadn't as yet had time to think about.

[Zane Barker] "Canons SLR department and Video camera departments are DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. Im personally betting with time that they till do some merging and we will some cameras aimed toward video people what will use the SLR lenses. "

I think you've hit it on the nailhead. I'll go one further, I'll bet the video division of Canon is saying, "hey, we don't have anything selling like that 5D/7D, we need to do something". I personally thing that Canon is the only company that could stuff a 5D sensor in an H2 body, because they don't have anything upstream to cannibalize sales from. Sony and Panasonic have a problem... if it's too good, how you going to sell those 3700, 2700, 900 and 950 cameras? Same problem we've always had...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

Well put John...well put. Some people WILL NOT accept new technologies. For me...the biggest selling point on any product is the END RESULT it produces. PERIOD.

Brian

I don't know why you keep getting so bent out of shape about what canon COULD be doing. Guess what? As soon as this technology is available in a comparably priced video camera...fine, I'll use it. But at this point in time, it isn't. I'd rather have it available somewhere rather than nowhere.

Rather than being so pissed off that you can shoot high quality video with a digital SLR...I'll actually go out and shoot it.



Brian

[John Davidson] "You could also point out that Final Cut should/could support editing via H.264. Apple sure pushed that codec down our throats hard enough a few years ago. That doesn't make me a sucker to Apple, that just means Apple still has work to do. I'm not going to refuse to work in FCP because of it. "

At least the raw clips will play back on the FCP timeline... as long as you don't need monitor playback... ouch!

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

[Chi-Ho Lee] "And plenty of people have shot sync fictional shorts and features on these cameras..."

Can't argue with you there!

I just wonder how long it will take those people to ask, "what were we thinking?" when they reflect on using a still camera to shoot video.

Two years? A year? Six months?

I suppose it all depends on what they anticipate the shelf life of their projects will be. Too bad for them if they thought they were shooting and oevre for the ages.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[Scott Sheriff] "...On the other hand being able to shoot moving video discretely may be desirable for some...."

Hey, now THAT's a fine use for a DSLR! Good point!

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

"Sorry but you are so wrong. I don't care if it was a matchbox with a pinhole producing pictures, I'm going on what they look like."-Peter

Yes as an editor pretty pictures are always preferable. But if you want to use that logic we should all shoot with something like a Panavision Genisis, or a Thomson Viper, but that just isn't practical, or necessary.
And while the Cannon looks good under controlled circumstances, I would rather have a standard ENG layout camera that shoots a lesser quality image for shooting in uncontrolled situations like breaking news, racing, action sports or shooting handheld for long periods of time. I think the odds of coming home with properly framed shots in these situations is better with an ENG layout, and what good is all that quality if its not in the frame?
The Cannon looked great on your snooker piece, but it seemed like the shoot was optimized to highlight the cameras strong points. How would it look at the Reno Air Races, or shooting an industrial high speed canning line? In these enviros the CMOS induced rolling shutter artifacts might be a deal breaker due to the fast repetitive motion of the subjects. So under these conditions I would rather have a CCD.
I just wanted to throw a few of these things into the mix and demonstrate it isn't always about the best picture.

[Scott Sheriff] ""Sorry but you are so wrong. I don't care if it was a matchbox with a pinhole producing pictures, I'm going on what they look like."-Peter

Yes as an editor pretty pictures are always preferable. But if you want to use that logic we should all shoot with something like a Panavision Genisis, or a Thomson Viper, but that just isn't practical, or necessary. "

Nope you've got my logic entirely the wrong way round.

[Stu Siegal] "In this case, it feels to me like Canon designed these two not to draw customers off their XL camcorder line (thus many of Dave's legitimate gripes regarding form, control, audio), but to come out with a product that tempts people waiting for the Red product to come to market to jump in now, at a price that will attract many to supplement their X series camcorders with a 5 or 7 d. It's shrewd, effective, and as a consumer, it sucks. "

I don't think this is the case though. Do to a changing landscape photojournalists are being asked to provide web video as well as stills and that's who vDSLRs were really targeted towards. I mean 30.00fps might suck for a typical b'cast workflow but it's perfectly fine for the web. Some people in the video world then pressed them into service as primarily video cameras even though these are still photography cameras first and foremost. As video people continue to complain about the lack of video features the DSLR makers will probably continue to try and appease them (like w/the proper frame rates on the 7D), but I don't think they are going to sacrifice their core audience of photographers to make a camera that is video first and stills second.

Red is the most interesting player in the game because their goal from the beginning for Scarlet and Epic was to make a camera that is equally at home taking moving and still pictures. Time will only tell if Canon and Panasonic will make truly convergent still and video camera or if they will continue to make "proper" video cameras at one part of the company and DSLRs that have tacked on video capability at another part of the company.


-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Stu Siegal] "Actually, they addressed the need for high quality stills & web video from one unit a while ago.

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/XHA1/case_study_03.shtml

Granted, still photogs didn't throw away their DSLR's for A1's, and I don't think Canon really expect them to, but I'm sure the Trib wasn't the only one to take advantage of the A1 as a still/video news gatherer.

Forgive me if I'm missing your point, but I said all this in my previous post, didn't I? Photojournalists being pressed into shooting video for the web, still cameras that can take 'good enough' video for thte web and video cameras that can take 'good enough' stills, etc..



Regardless, the genie is out of the bottle with the 5d & 7d, and it's only a matter of time until either a wise strategy, an eye for opportunity, or the demands of the marketplace force them to integrate the best of their video features into a proper camcorder. "
Again, this is why I waiting to see what Red delivers next year because they stated they were building a camera that's equally at home taking both video and stills.


-Andrew


3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

The topic of this thread was if the Cannon was somehow going to be the end of the current crop of 'Prosumer' cameras, and not if the Cannon was a good camera or not.
Despite some well deserved praise for the Cannon, plenty of folks posted reasons they wouldn't give up what they are currently using, and jump ship to the Cannon, despite it awesome image.
If you look at broadcasting, there are examples of gear that had better specs not being the 'king of the hill'. Think of helical scan quads like the IVC 9000. Or look at how Betacam displaced 1". Even though it didn't have as good a picture as 1", other factors made Betacam more popular. Also Betamax and Laserdisc didn't beat VHS, on the consumer level.
So the argument that picture quality isn't everything, is certainly valid. At least when it comes to arguing if a one technology will displace another.
I think the diversity of opinions here might indicate that the Cannon DSLR won't 'be the end of' the current ENG style Prosumer cameras anytime soon.

Dave,

The original intent of the Canon 5d MkII was not to be a video camera, nor challenge any existing video cameras. It was made to fulfil a specific need of reporters from Reuters who could shoot pro quality stills with the occasional video.

The video was made as 30 fps not 29.97 fps with that specific intention as Reuters reporters were expected to create video for the web with this device. Web can work with 30fps every bit as well as 29.97 fps.

The form factor of the camera is friendly for still photographers so they could concentrate on shooting stills rather than learn a whole new alien interface as well as method of using the camera. Still photographers simply wouldn't have been able to easily adjust to a shoulder mount camera. Whereas, holding a camera at arm's length and looking at an LCD screen is not very new to them.

What Canon did not estimate is how well the video fraternity took this camera up. They have sold nearly 50,000 5dMkII models and maybe about half as many 7Ds. And now there's the 1D MkIV. Together, through 2010 Canon could easily move probably a 100,000 pieces.

There is probably no video camera, and definitely no pro HD or higher resolution camera that can ever hope to sell these numbers. Even the Red, arguably the post popular pro digital movie camera so far, has sold not too many over 5000.

One of the benefits of making a still camera that shoots video, rather than a video camera that shoots stills, is that still shooters who use the SLR form factor are generally good photographers. They have a strong sense of composition and pictorial language.

They often also make a living out of taking pictures. Hence, by and large, videos from these vDSLRs seem to be pretty decent looking compared to the shaky, zoomy, swimmy videos most amateurs dish out of handycam type video cameras.

Vimeo, Flickr, smugmug, Exposure Room are full of some really great video from vDSLRs. Perya, Dublin's People, Nocturne, lots of examples.

Granted, they may be unsuitable for broadcast, but there is a huge, not-recession-ridden market of wedding video, corporate video, and internet video that can benefit from vDSLRs.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India

[Neil Sadwelkar] " Hence, by and large, videos from these vDSLRs seem to be pretty decent looking compared to the shaky, zoomy, swimmy videos most amateurs dish out of handycam type video cameras. "
I agree with you Neil, but so far we have been watching mostly select Canon MK5 footage.
With 100.00 cameras in the street, we will end up watching horrible things from that amazing camera.
And be sure that the horrible things from that camera will look worst than any amateurs video.
We will end up getting tired of the "sallow deep of focus".

Terry have mentioned:
2. Nothing will replace the person behind the lens.
3. Content will always beat out slick output.
And lets don't forget about technology.
Photographers welcome to the world of the "living codec".
To get a 45 minutes documentary with pictures as Peter Wiggins brought here, is not as easy as just to click your Canon.
Cheers,
rafael



http://www.nagavideo.com

Yeup, compressor settings are vital

Peter

[Dave LaRonde] "And finally, the geniuses at Canon set up those cameras to shoot at 30fps. Not Film's 24, not NTSC's 23.976, not PAL's 25, not NTSC's 29.97, but 30. It isn't a natural frame rate for ANYTHING.

So: it makes drop-dead gorgeous pictures, but the camera's hard to operate, it shoots at the wrong frame rate, and you can't easily edit the video. "

I'm going to have to disagree, based on my experience. I haven't switched, but I have worked with it. First, the 5D came out first, so it's strictly 30.00. The 7D which just came out doesn't have any of the issues you're describing. The 30P is 29.97. The 24p is 23.98, and it has 25p (haven't used it). Given that, it isn't a big stretch that either the 5D mkIII or the firmware update will have exactly the same thing.

Second, the raw clips will play in FCP without any rendering or re-encoding, which makes them a lot less trouble than my P2 or somebody's EX-1. You can also us Pro-Res, which is no more trouble than P2, SxS, or AVC.

So, I guess I'll have to ask why you feel this way?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

Hi Dave L.: Thanks for hanging-in here. I always appreciate your posts, and your stick-with-it persistence here does you credit. :-)

Sorry for the long post, but here are few observations:

- The Canon video-capable DSLR cams output live video including while in record mode. However, the output signal varies a bit depending on the model. For example, I believe the 5DM2 puts out a signal approx. 480p letter-boxed via HDMI, whereas the 7D outputs approx. 720p via HDMI. Not as useful as SDI, but better than nothing. When an HDMI cable is connected to the Canons their built-in LCD monitor turns off. These cams can also output composite video, but I'm less familiar exactly how & when they do. In terms of video out capabilities, the current Canon DSLRs obviously aren't as versatile as a typical broadcast cam, let alone most prosumer or eve a few consumer cams, but they do in fact output "live video". Kinda. :-)

- The Panasonic GH1 doesn't output any live video when the cam is in record mode. Nothing. Nada. Vilch. Cute huh? [Not.]

- I believe none of the current crop of DSLRs output live audio when they're in record mode. I know for sure the GH1 doesn't; I'm not 1000% certain about the Canons. So, live monitoring of audio being recorded into these cams is not supported by the manufacturers. Just to prove the manufacturers have a sense of humor, they didn't put headphone jacks on these things. Would've cost them, what, $0.02? I mean, why make a "HD video & stereo sound recording device" without a headphone jack? LOL funny, I'm tell'n ya.

- Not only can't you monitor the audio being recorded in-cam, but the DSLRs also feature an always-on automatic audio record level feature that can't be turned off. Results: Useable as a scratch/reference track or maybe for better-than-nothing program audio, but clearly less than desirable. Alternatively, an external audio recorder such as the H4N and similar can be used. But still, in-cam audio recording can be handy:
http://vimeo.com/groups/gh1/videos/5860184

- The free, open source "Magic Lantern" firmware software adds several useful features to the Canon 5DM2, possibly including zebras, manual audio rec levels & on-screen meters, and many more. Can't beat the price, but some folks may prefer not to rely on 3rd party software running in their cam. That's cool. ML isn't available for the 7D -- yet. Stay tuned for further developments.

- Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there isn't anything similar to Magic Lantern available for the GH1. Sigh.

- Although Canon, Panasonic, Sony, etc. may come out with cameras next year (?) that incorporate technology from the video-capable DSLRs, it's likely such "video cams" will cost considerably more than their nearest-equivalent DSLR. These near-future, larger-than-2/3" sensor traditional form-factor video cameras will be very useful tools. But I bet they'll cost considerably more than $2K. Maybe Panasonic will put the guts of a GH1 inside an entry-level shoulder-mount body. Panasonic & Sony have done similar things before.

- In competent hands, the current crop of DSLR cams can produce attractive but relatively low-res "HD" video. The Canons especially produce impressive amounts of aliasing artifacts, including false-colors. Fun! :-) But I repeat: Despite this, they can make useful and pretty "HD" video. Barry Green at DVXuser.com shot some res chart test that are real eye-openers:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187503
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=186334
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=187

- Most of the HD video-capable DSLR cams are relatively inexpensive compared to most prosumer video cams & all pro video cams. Further, the body-only version of the Panasonic GH1 is about half the price of a Canon 7D body. Making direct comparisons between these cams really should include an acknowledgment of how inexpensive they are. Whatever "flaws" or "shortcomings" these cams may have, they can be incredible values if they are appropriate for the task at hand.

- Even though the current crop of video-capable DSLR cams have certain fairly severe technical and ergonomic limitations, there are at least hundreds of examples of very nicely-shot video created using them available on Vimeo, YouTube, and elsewhere. Here are two; there are _many_ more out there:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1795042&postcount=95
http://www.vimeo.com/7121830

- Illya Friedman of Hot Rod Cameras has posted some very useful suggestions for how to get good results using the GH1. He also sells a pro-quality PL lens mount (!) for the cam:
http://www.hotrodcameras.com/category/tips-and-tricks/

- "Broadcast quality" = "If the station/network/channel/website wants to show a video badly enough, they'll show it, no matter what the video was shot with". Broadcast quality isn't a tech spec, it's a business decision. Sure, some cams are already on the pre-approved lists, but things change, same as ever.

Enjoy the new tools!

- Peter

watch for an apc sensor dslr canon camcorder at nab 2010. it will have all the ergonomics prosumers need. it will be a few years for this format to go to 2/3inch. i feel sorry for jim oakley. he pioneered this whole idea. once again, brilliant reverse engineering.

[Fred Weil] "...I would love to know what you recommend I buy next...."

Oh Lord, I have no clue whatsoever... at least not in your price range.

Grass Valley makes a great HD camera that can record full 29.97 1920x1080 interlaced OR 1280x720p 59.94 video, and in the JPEG 2000 codec to boot: just about anybody on the planet can work with those files! My station got a demo, and dropped it from consideration because it was too expensive.

From where I sit, a prosumer camera is just that. It has the capability to shoot great-looking video, faithfully record audio.... but once it's recorded, you have to jump through hoops to work with the footage. Someone in your position needs access to the video RIGHT NOW after it's been shot. You can't fool around: you're done shooting at 2:20, the reporter's recording the VO's as you ingest, and the window for your pak on the bird opens at 2:55 and closes at 3:05. Then you have to FTP alternate versions to use as anchor VO's and bumps at 3:15. Sound familiar?

You don't have the luxury of time. You can't wait for conversions to a different codec for editing. Then if you have to convert your work to some other codec for distribution, you're behind the Eight-Ball.

Others will say, "Well, it isn't that tough to convert to a different codec, and you can convert it to the resolution you need easily enough," and they're right. But when's THEIR deadline? A week from now. When's YOUR deadline? In 35 minutes, and the clock's ticking. The prosumer camera revolution isn't built for speed... and you have to pay for speed.

I don't like to say this, but I fear that the only good, FAST, reasonably-priced and reliably-performing system from acquisition to distribution remains in the realm of DV. Ugh.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

[John Davidson] "...in our world a week is really fast..."

...and in my world, about forty-two newscasts would have been put out over the air in that same time. Speed is life in our business.

It's all shooting and editing, but two totally different perspectives on the concept of time.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA