A Basic Question about Pro-Camcorders

Hello everybody. I have a simple question. Why professional camcorders (e.g. Alexa, F-65) haven't full frame sensor and why they have Super-35mm sensor? As simply Canon 5DMKII has full frame sensor. I can't understand that why they are.. Already thank you.

Hello everybody. I have a simple question. Why professional camcorders (e.g. Alexa, F-65) haven't full frame sensor and why they have Super-35mm sensor? As simply Canon 5DMKII has full frame sensor. I can't understand that why they are.. Already thank you.

Because Super35mm has been and still is a film standard. Most of what you see on the big screen was shot on Super35mm.

Full Frame DSLR, like the 5D is not a film standard. It only became common when the 5D MK2 was launched. Some films were shot on VistaVision and IMAX but the benefit of the large sensor in film making its limited.

Shooting moving picture on a Full Frame sensor with a fast aperture makes it almost impossible to hold the subject in focus. You can get a workable shallow DOF on Super35mm.

Thank you Adam Roberts. Still I couldn't understand exactly but I'm getting better

The Alexa, Red, and F-65 are not "camcorders", they are Digital Cinema Cameras, which feature an 8.9MP more or less (changes with different models) Super 35mm image sensor cameras, capable of capturing 4K, 2K and HD resolution images in Raw or ProRes formats.

Professional camcorders (aka camera recorders) usually refers to multi-sensor 1/2" (they have 3 sensors, not just one large sensor) cameras (used to record to tape built in or added to back of camera, hence the name) used in television production, and output 4.2.2 and 4.4.4 video. ENG news cameras are most common example. Pro consumer camcorders are offered in both 1/3 and 1/2 inch sensors. Most are ProRes or another "video" codex like H.264. They shoot native in 4x3 or 16x9 only formats used by television.

A Cinema camera mean while, shares some features, but differs in that they have a single 35 Cine or. Super 35 Cine sized sensor, based on the respective film format. Their aspect ratio is usually variable, most are based around 16x9, but can shoot in other ratios, like 14x9.

You gave very important info's. Thank you Denny

You are welcome. Have a great week

An other aspect is, shooting cinema with a FF sensor is hell.

Your DOF is so thin, that most pro focus pullers would not dare to touch it.

Even on s35, they usually have contracts, that say: Less than f4 - no way Jose.

So with a FF sensor you would need to stop down much more, to get into a usable range.
That means you need more light. This is while producers don't like FF.

I mean, go to Vimeo and look at all those flicks, shot on DSLR.
Constant focus racking and searching galore. Most stuff is 80% of the time out of focus.

The Alexa, Red, and F-65 are not "camcorders", they are Digital Cinema Cameras, which feature an 8.9MP more or less (changes with different models) Super 35mm image sensor cameras, capable of capturing 4K, 2K and HD resolution images in Raw or ProRes formats.

Professional camcorders (aka camera recorders) usually refers to multi-sensor 1/2" (they have 3 sensors, not just one large sensor) cameras (used to record to tape built in or added to back of camera, hence the name) used in television production, and output 4.2.2 and 4.4.4 video. ENG news cameras are most common example. Pro consumer camcorders are offered in both 1/3 and 1/2 inch sensors. Most are ProRes or another "video" codex like H.264. They shoot native in 4x3 or 16x9 only formats used by television.

A Cinema camera mean while, shares some features, but differs in that they have a single 35 Cine or. Super 35 Cine sized sensor, based on the respective film format. Their aspect ratio is usually variable, most are based around 16x9, but can shoot in other ratios, like 14x9.

Sorry Denny,

I don't think your definition is quite right. The term camcorder is a pretty generic term going back to the 70's or 80's IIRC. It refers to any camera that combines a video head and a recorder of some type into a single package, doesn't matter if the recorder is analog or digital, how many sensors are in the package or what format it shoots. I think it's also fair to say that the term "cinema camera" isn't so much a technical term, as it is a description of what a particular camera can be used for. I'm thinking of cameras like Sony's F3. It was marketed as a cinema camera, but I know it got a lot of use in ENG, corporate and documentary work... same with Panasonic's AF100 and Sony's FS100/700. They're both marketed as digital cinema camcorders, but I've seen them used in a LOT in ENG and corporate projects as well.

Shawn

I think you should grab your Kleenex because the only term that has become more generic than "camcorder" is "cinema camera". The words have so little meaning as to hardly specify a thing.

Even on s35, they usually have contracts, that say: Less than f4 - no way Jose.

I've been using Local 600 AC's (union in the states) for my entire career and never had one of them balk at pulling at any stop.

The Alexa, Red, and F-65 are not "camcorders", they are Digital Cinema Cameras, which feature an 8.9MP more or less (changes with different models) Super 35mm image sensor cameras, capable of capturing 4K, 2K and HD resolution images in Raw or ProRes formats.

Professional camcorders (aka camera recorders) usually refers to multi-sensor 1/2" (they have 3 sensors, not just one large sensor) cameras (used to record to tape built in or added to back of camera, hence the name) used in television production, and output 4.2.2 and 4.4.4 video. ENG news cameras are most common example. Pro consumer camcorders are offered in both 1/3 and 1/2 inch sensors. Most are ProRes or another "video" codex like H.264. They shoot native in 4x3 or 16x9 only formats used by television.

A Cinema camera mean while, shares some features, but differs in that they have a single 35 Cine or. Super 35 Cine sized sensor, based on the respective film format. Their aspect ratio is usually variable, most are based around 16x9, but can shoot in other ratios, like 14x9.

As has been said, camcorder simply means camera + recorder and commonly referred to ENG cameras, as opposed to studio cameras that recorded on separate tape machines. As such, the BM Pocket camera is a "camcorder". Most high quality broadcast cameras of the 80's including studio 1" had 3 CCD's. The original "digital cinema" camera was the HDW F900, and it's "Panavised" version the HD 900F. It was developed for George Lucas in 2000 and was a 3 x 2/3 CCD based on the Digital Betacam. It was also the original 1080p HD acquisition camera and the beginning of HD. There were a slew of feature films shot on the F900 including Attack of the Clones and Avatar. It was succeeded by Sony's F23, another 3 x 2/3" ccd cinema camera.
The F900 was the first of Sony's Cinealta line of cameras which include the F3 and F55 and F65.

When Red came out with the single chip CMOS sensor, much debate happened about the relative quality of it's 4K vs 3 x CCD HD camera images, as most of the benefit of CMOS sensors pixel count was lost in the processing of the image(debayering). Size isn't everything. Having a high pixel density is related to a noisier image, I believe. 3 x CCD sensors have been considered to give better colour rendition until recently with advances in CMOS chips and processing. CMOS sensors are cheaper to make and better in low light but until now, have come with rather serious artifacts such as rolling shutter "jello cam" and others, hence the value of the new BMD 4k with it's global CMOS sensor.

If you want to get picky about terminology, Pro consumer is a contradiction in terms and I have not heard it used before, only prosumer, which to me means not broadcast professional but better than consumer level.

Categorising the BMD's as prosumer doesn't seem right to me.
Their image quality is up there with Alexa and Red but they are not ideal for prosumer work like events and corporate video.

I see a lot of professionals on this forum who own BMD's and know how to use them and are unincumbered by finances needed to acquire RED's etc.
And I see a lot of wannabees like myself, who want to learn their craft but can't afford access to high cost gear.
More power to BMD.

Where BMD differs from Red etc is their cameras form factors and ergonomics, lens mounts, connectors.
Reds cost a premium for their components like EVF's, recording media, lens mounts but they are built for cinematography ergonomics.

Of all the complaints about BMD cameras, their ergonomics and form factor are the ones I am most unhappy with.
Still, you can't have everything, unless you can pay through the arse for it.

Shawn,

You are correct. I was attempting to show primary difference between a "Pro Camcorder" and the Cinema camcorder. But, any video camera combined with some type of video recording device in a single package is a "Camcorder". The first camcorder was actually released by Sony in 1975, while 3/4 Umatic ruled TV Broadcasting, this first video camcorder was based on Sony's consumer Bettamax 1/2 tPe system - and the first Prosumer Video camcorder was born. TV and professional productions did not get a Video camcorder until 1982 when the Bettacam was released,musing the same1/2-inch tape, but running at a faster speed to increase quality, and of course, XLR Balance audio, BNC video connections, professional industry standards. Consumer cameras used consumer RCA connections, followed by S-Video.

My first job in Video production was in the 70s using 3/4 Umatic camera and separate recorder, this along with the audio mixer, required 2-3 people to "haul" around almost 100-pounds of gear. A betacam weighed in at almost 20 lbs.

Today you can take a 1-pound BM Pocket camera and capture better video than either a U!atic rig, or Betacam could do. Shooting "Raw" you have a digitial cinema version of a 16mm-35mm negative, with all the exposure controls and almost the same latitude. Using a digitial Betacam (DigiBetta) and similar video camcorders, including ProRes, gives you close to a reversal transparency stock, at a slightly lower quality, but very close. The rest is history, And that is the rest of the story...


Today

Shawn,

You are correct. I was attempting to show primary difference between a "Pro Camcorder" and the Cinema camcorder. But, any video camera combined with some type of video recording device in a single package is a "Camcorder".

Fair enough.

My first job in Video production was in the 70s using 3/4 Umatic camera and separate recorder, this along with the audio mixer, required 2-3 people to "haul" around almost 100-pounds of gear. A betacam weighed in at almost 20 lbs.

Wow, I can't imagine what that must have been like! I'm a relative newcomer to the field, having only been working in video production since the late 90's. Although, my first video camera was a VHS camera with a separate deck.

Today you can take a 1-pound BM Pocket camera and capture better video than either a U!atic rig, or Betacam could do. Shooting "Raw" you have a digitial cinema version of a 16mm-35mm negative, with all the exposure controls and almost the same latitude. Using a digitial Betacam (DigiBetta) and similar video camcorders, including ProRes, gives you close to a reversal transparency stock, at a slightly lower quality, but very close. The rest is history, And that is the rest of the story...

Absolutely!

Shawn

Thanks Shawn,

One of the most difficult shot I did with the Umatic rig, was walking backwards down a dirt trail with the camera on one sholder and the Umatic deck on the other. The field Producer had to walk along my left side to keep me going straight, as the deck dangling from my left sholder was heavier than the camera, and made me go to the left. She had to correct my course, pushing me back to the right.
The "good ole days", I think not. I will take a BM camera any day!

I always thought pro-camcorders are professional TV broadcast cameras that record to digibeta or whatever medium.

RED, ARRIs and BMCCs are cinema cameras, so even though they technically are camcorders, I don't call them that ever.

As far as full frame is concerned, I've asked a few times, never having used a DSLR full frame myself, can find no clear answer to why you'd want it for shooting movies. It's just going to be a real pain to focus with, even when lighting properly. The shallower depth of field doesn't hit the sweet spot as well as a Super 35mm sensor does, or a BMCC/BMPCC with a Speed Booster.

Jules

Thanks Shawn,

One of the most difficult shot I did with the Umatic rig, was walking backwards down a dirt trail with the camera on one sholder and the Umatic deck on the other. The field Producer had to walk along my left side to keep me going straight, as the deck dangling from my left sholder was heavier than the camera, and made me go to the left. She had to correct my course, pushing me back to the right.
The "good ole days", I think not. I will take a BM camera any day!

lol - completely understandable, I don't know how shooters did it in those days! Now I feel guilty for complaining about my 13 lb., shoulder mounted HPX500 (sometimes)! I think it's easy to forget how good things have gotten for the modern shooter; weight, CODEC choices, dynamic range, lens choices, all at bargain basement prices! We really do have an embarrassment of riches... of course, that just means that no one is happy.

Shawn

... I think it's easy to forget how good things have gotten for the modern shooter; weight, CODEC choices, dynamic range, lens choices, all at bargain basement prices! We really do have an embarrassment of riches... of course, that just means that no one is happy.

Shawn

The advances in just the 21st century, and even the last five years, are truly astounding. If you look at the cameras and the lenses and the post capabilities that have only been introduced in the last two or three years or are about to be released in the next year, you can see the technology has made everything more accessible and viable. Of course, that's just the first step and how it's used may or may not show the same progression. You do have to admire what has been achieved throughout more than a century of filmmaking. A film from the 30s can be every bit as entertaining as a film made today.

And trying to think five years ahead is just going to make you dizzy. Probably by then 4K will be consumed as a standard while Red will be touting their 16K sensors with visually lossless 16x compression and someone will be selling cinema lenses for a quarter of their price today and the Mac Pro will once again support dual CPUs and offer quad GPUs (I know at a price still beyond the reach of mere mortals)! Have fun you youngins' that will live to enjoy so many more tomorrows.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The advances in just the 21st century, and even the last five years, are truly astounding. If you look at the cameras and the lenses and the post capabilities that have only been introduced in the last two or three years or are about to be released in the next year, you can see the technology has made everything more accessible and viable. Of course, that's just the first step and how it's used may or may not show the same progression. You do have to admire what has been achieved throughout more than a century of filmmaking. A film from the 30s can be every bit as entertaining as a film made today.

And trying to think five years ahead is just going to make you dizzy. Probably by then 4K will be consumed as a standard while Red will be touting their 16K sensors with visually lossless 16x compression and someone will be selling cinema lenses for a quarter of their price today and the Mac Pro will once again support dual CPUs and offer quad GPUs (I know at a price still beyond the reach of mere mortals)! Have fun you youngins' that will live to enjoy so many more tomorrows.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well said indeed! I wonder if the future of digital cinema cameras includes Red's 615 Monstro?

http://camerarentalz.com/epic-617/


Shawn