The TV camera: Past, present and future
Mar 1, 2009 12:00 PM, By Spring Suptic
The prosumer shift
“Broadcasters need equipment that's extremely rugged, extremely versatile, can shoot in very low light and can handle wide temperature swings, day in and day out,” says veteran cameraman Barry Braverman.
The focus is now on equipment that does everything at a low price. Enter the prosumer camera.
“The technology makes it possible; the economics makes it necessary,” Luff says.
To continue downward on price and performance, manufacturers need to increase the number of pieces they sell. However, Luff says we've hit the long tail. The economics will require the broadcast market to be part of a bigger market. Manufacturers now design products for the consumer and professional markets with some of the same parts. The DVC Pro, for example, started out in the consumer market and evolved to the professional market.
The DX1000, a consumer/prosumer DV camera, marked a shift in camera production, Braverman says.
“The Sony DSR150 and the Panasonic DVX100 were a huge step forward from a production perspective,” he says.
And he adds that the Sony EX1 and the HDX200 are a continuation of low-cost cameras that do everything, just sometimes not as past professional cameras. For example, he says, a big factor for many shooters is the optics in the cameras. However, as the price of the cameras decreases, the optics get worse and worse.
“Manufacturers can't give you a $25,000 lens on a camera that costs $8000,” Braverman says. “The way they do it is pretty clever. The camera compensates for the relatively modest lenses that come with the camera. So, they provide $8000 industrial lenses, but they have a lookup table in the camera that recognizes that lens and its defects and applies a digital chromatic aberration compensation.”
Every manufacturer does this in cameras that have integrated, permanently mounted lenses. Panasonic was one of the first to do it with interchangeable lenses, starting with its PX5000.
“What that means for the industry is that broadcasters can get nearly — but not quite — the performance out of an $8000 or $10,000 lens that they used to get out of a $20,000 lens,” Braverman says.
The move toward HD has put a lot of pressure on lenses and optics.
“While they see greater amount of picture detail, they also see, unfortunately, a lot more lens defects,” Braverman says.
Standard-definition lenses on high-definition cameras can be problematic because we suddenly see all the problems that before were hidden by standard definition's rougher edge.
Evolution of the craft
Changes in camera technology also reflect a change in production values, Luff says.
Braverman agrees, saying, “We're seeing the convergence of field reporters into one person — shooting, writing, directing, editing, going for coffee. That one person's attention is now spread across multiple disciplines. So, the tools required then also have to be spread across multiple disciplines.”
The introduction of the MXF format used in the P2 camera lends itself to this multidisciplinary approach. With the P2 system, files are arranged in folders, so the user can easily produce proxies that can be uploaded by satellite and sent back to the station. Now there are cameras with built-in MPEG-4 encoders, which enable reporters to relay the proxy to the station, so the station can start working on the show before they get back with the physical media.
“Camera people used to be an elite group. Now there's a sense that anyone can pick up a camera and produce remarkable pictures,” Braverman says. “It used to be a question of who owned the tools, because the tools were expensive, they took some expertise to run.”
For example, Braverman says with film cameras, the operator had to know how to load it and understand F-stop, depth of field, and all kind of issues. Then, as time went by, the tools became available to everyone.
“Today, it's not a matter of who owns the tools,” Braverman says. “It's a question of who owns the craft.”
Today's cameras are infinitely more capable and rugged, and cost one-third to half of the price. Manufacturers are responding to the economic necessity.
“But from a shooter's perspective, going out on a job, we're asked to do the same level of work, except we're handed a $6000 or $7000 camera instead of a $50,000 camera,” Braverman says. “And the capabilities of the two are just not comparable. From a shooter's perspective, it's a challenging time.”
The move away from full-sized professional cameras with broadcast optics has made it much more difficult to produce clean, professional looking images, according to Braverman.
“On the other hand, from a broadcaster's perspective, the lower cost means the ability to buy 10 cameras instead of one camera,” he says. “And the fact that they're less sophisticated means that you don't need a cameraman with 20 years of experience.”
This proposition is attractive to broadcasters, especially in these economic times.
Where does that leave the craft? With this new economic reality, Braverman says that the apprenticeships and the opportunity for a young shooter to learn from a master have vanished.
“And this has led to a lowering of standards in many ways because the reference isn't there,” he says.
Stewart Pittman, a cameraman for Greensboro, NC, FOX affiliate WGHP-DT agrees.
“I was lucky to start in '89 at an old station with old equipment and old veterans to train me,” he says.
He found that carrying a TV logo was a powerful tool. With a TV camera in hand, he could go anywhere. He says that that power has faded a bit in recent years, in part due to cameras no longer being a tool exclusively held by the cameramen elite.
| Want to use this article? Click here for options! |  |
