9 ms·
Why are TV Cameras still huge and expensive? (2019) [video]
- kfarr 4y agoTLDR: The lens and pro accessories
- jandrese 4y agoBut mostly because the market is tiny so there is no economies of scale. The small number of these cameras sold every year has to support the entire industry.
- SkyPuncher 4y agoPhysics is another issue. It's far hard to aim a photon at the exact correct pixel on a sensor when both the lens and sensor are smaller. With larger glass and sensors, even if something is off slightly, there's a better chance it hits the right pixel. This is likely more noticeable with chromatic aberration different light colors bend slightly differently. With larger equipment and long lens lengths, there's less separation between colors.
- kuschku 4y agoThough TV cameras have some of the smallest sensors out there, as sensor size also affects lens size. Just compare ENG broadcast sensor size to APS-C/Super35 or Full Frame: https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png
- kayfox 4y agoIt should also be noted that an ENG camera typically has 3 sensors and not just one. The BMD Ursa Broadcast used in the above video is an exception, but its also a cinema camera converted to take B4 mount ENG lenses and not built from the ground up to do live broadcast video. Its also from a company that has weird ideas about how broadcast equipment should work.
- kuschku 4y agoSony also builds ENG cameras with single-sensor rolling-shutter bayer pattern based stuff. Which is ridiculous considering how much money they want for that. There's only a handful cameras with three individual sensors with global shutter on the market nowadays, and the price point is expectedly astronomical (~70k USD)
- kayfox 4y agoMost of their broadcast camera system lineup is 3-chip: https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems There's a couple exceptions, like the Super-35 HDC-F5500 and HDC-4800.
- kuschku 4y agoMost of the ones you linked are just variations on two different assemblies, and as soon as you look at their otherwise extensive ENG lineup, the situation doesn't get much better, that one also only has the Z750 while the Z450 and X400 have no global shutter. But you're right, they still have a few good options for now :)
- solarkraft 4y agoInteresting and slightly unexpected trade-off. But of course: The situations these are used in tend to be well lit.
- colechristensen 4y agoDigital sensors these days are way better at capturing light, even with much higher resolution video the rest of the camera can indeed shrink a lot, there’s just not much pressure to do so because the market and competition is small and smaller means cheaper means less profit in an already small customer base. But folks are using much smaller equipment for some production work too.
- robomartin 4y ago> Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light Has the quantum efficiency of silicon improved? How much?
- analog31 4y agoNot quantum efficiency per se, but dynamic range has been improved by the development of sensors with lower readout noise.
- robomartin 4y agoThe statement was that today’s sensors are “better at capturing light”. Not sure signal-to-noise is what the OP meant. Note: I studied CCD and CMOS sensor design some 15 years ago under the scientists who designed a great deal of the sensors that flew in spacecraft. Jim Janesick was one of my instructors. https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJames+R.+Janesick https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A28315...
- mulmen 4y agoWell they said today's sensors, not today's silicon. The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component.
- robomartin 4y ago> The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component. No. It's about materials properties and physics.
- sycren 4y agoWho is currently researching lenses that are cheaper, sustainable, at a production that can scale? Are there any other industries on the peripheral that would also benefit from market innovation in optics?
- thfuran 4y agoSmartphones
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoThis is true. I was reading about research into "semi-liquid" lenses that can reshape. That could be very useful for smartphones. A few years ago, a friend of mine, who is a video engineer, introduced me to the DJI Osmo Pocket[0]. That was an awesome little camera. I suspect that it may have improved with age. [0] https://www.dji.com/pocket-2 https://www.dji.com/pocket-2
- lostlogin 4y agoDo you manufactures consider sustainability? The other factors, sure.
- antisthenes 4y agoThe bottleneck is coming up with ideas for good content, not the amount of cameras to film it with.
- kfarr 4y agoYeah agreed, there will never be a big market for studio cameras but that's ok
- tcbyrd 4y agoThat may explain the “expensive” part but it doesn’t explain the “huge” part. Could Fujinon make their huge lenses cheaper? Maybe. But as the video points out there’s practical reasons the equipment has to be the physical size that it is, and yes the market for productions that have the team and budget to support and operate the equipment is relatively small. And those cameras are usually a 5+ year investment.
- kayfox 4y agoIts huge because of two things: 1. The lens elements are really large to gather a lot of light so that it can work well in a wide range of lighting conditions. The front most element is as large as the front hood. 2. Every set of lens elements, some being just one lens, is moved individually, there is a controller that calculates the proper position for each lens and moves them based on input from the operators controls and the camera. This allows the lens to zoom really fast without loosing focus.
- tcbyrd 4y agoI’d recommend you watch the video. There’s a lot more to it than just the lens and it’s not just “to gather a lot of light”. You can gather a whole bunch of light on an f0.8 lens in way less weight. The video does a great job with the details of the physics.
- kayfox 4y agoI work with these lenses. I think the only other things the video hits on that I skipped over are: Its heavy, which is not really a design choice but just the result of all the stuff that goes into them and this particular one is a very long lens, which is also not always the case with these box lenses (the one currently on my workbench is a 24x, for example). Edit: In my experience, the mass of the lens is not as important as the tripod head when it comes to keeping operator shake to a minimum. A good head will smooth out the operators movements and a bad operator is perfectly capable of making 100lbs of camera and lens shake.
- marci 4y agoThis TLDR would be apt if the question was "What is expensive ang huge" rather than "Why are they expesensive and huge"
- kuschku 4y agoAlthough a lot of TV production is done with relatively small cameras nowadays — an FX3 (or FX30 if you want even smaller lenses) with accompanying lens can be around 2kg and powerful enough for broadcast or even Netflix productions. But that only makes sense for narrative media, where you can repeat the same scene again and again. For live, or sports, the camera and lens need to be extremely overengineered so every take is perfect, because you won't get a second attempt.
- kfarr 4y agoTotally and that extends to the high cost of infrastructure further down the pipe. Back haul, switching equipment, redundant satellite links, etc. The high cost of the studio camera is just the beginning. Having truly reliable "six nines" at this level of quality is stunningly expensive and complicated.
- hgsgm 4y agoIt's more that shooting a movie is planned, slow motion that's easier to capture, not fast and unpredictable like sports or war.
- alasdair_ 4y agoI don't see the FX30 on Netflix's approved camera list. Are they fine with them even though they are not on the list? https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-Image-Capture-Requirements-and-Best-Practices https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...
- jefftk 4y agoSummary: in broadcast work the camera needs to handle the situation. This is different from TV shows and movies where the production adapts somewhat to the needs of the camera. So you would like a camera that can get a clear image of something that might be near or far, and potentially moving rapidly in three dimensions. We are able to build camera lenses that do this incredibly well, but it's correspondingly expensive: ~$200k, far more expensive than any other component.
- carabiner 4y agoThe whole video is really good. Yeah, the key thing is the lens, but how this has cascading effects on the entire assembly is fascinating. The tripod alone is $20k because it must provide stable, smooth support for the 150 lb camera assembly. The video is full of second order effects like this that I, a non-photographer, could not anticipate. Similar to saying why is it hard to live in Antarctica, because it's extremely cold, but the details are what make this a meaty video.
- criddell 4y agoEvery once in a while during a football or baseball game, they will point a camera and get a moon shot as they go to commercials and it’s pretty astounding how well these cameras set up to capture people throwing a ball around can capture the moon.
- LiquidPolymer 4y agoI’ve been involved in shooting video projects professionally for over 30 years. This question about the expense of “pro” gear is getting quite fuzzy. Most of my work has been as a contractor or freelancer and I’ve always believed in buying excellent gear. Yet I’ve never had any producer or editor ask “what did you shoot this with?”* Durability and reliability is the prime reason pro gear is preferred but for me anyway that calculation has changed in recent years. I just returned from Borneo where I was mostly using Sony RX-10 prosumer cameras. I carried 4 RX-10 bodies and never missed a shot. Everything was shot in 4K. A top end pro camera from Sony would have an edge on quality in terms of pixels and dynamic range. But not enough to spend an additional 25k. Plus with the cheaper cameras I much less hesitant to put them in harms way. When you are less concerned about destroying the camera it provides opportunities that otherwise might not be considered. I actually just hired a production team for a project I’m involved with as a producer. They are going to be using top notch Arri Alexa cameras with prime Cine lenses. This is GREAT gear! But I’ll never forget the $25 Panasonic M42 28mm lens I used on a RED camera that was fantastic. It had a bit of chromatic aberration but this was easily corrected in post. Nobody questioned the results. Our iPhone or Android cameras rival what Panavision was providing in the 80’s. * the exception is always super slow motion or incredible low light performance.
- sand500 4y agoHow does the Sony A7S lineup compare with the high end gear for low light performance?
- kuschku 4y agoThe A7SIII is a low light wonder with the dual native ISO at 12800, even compared to pro (cinema) gear, which is why the FX3 is based in the A7SIII.
- dannyw 4y agoBest in class. However, a7 IV has pretty good performance too (except at extreme ISOs), and is much more useful as a photography camera. A7S III is also not getting video centric firmware updates, unlike the FX3 which has same internals.
- zdw 4y agoThe mention that TV cameras are Parfocal is really key: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens Which means that you can zoom with it without having to refocus, which is not the case with less expensive lenses.
- Retr0id 4y agoPossibly silly question: with digital controls, why can't any lens become parfocal? Can't the camera/lens just do the math to figure out how to adjust the focus to accommodate any zoom level change, in tandem with the zoom change itself?
- charrondev 4y agoIt seems feasible. I’ve noticed for example my Canon R5 autofocus in videos can pretty consistently hold focus while zooming. One thing to keep in mind though is in big production sets they are not using automatic focus at all, and cinematic lenses don’t tend to have focusing motors. (Also a focusing motor for a 100lb lens would likely be very noisy).
- dannyw 4y agoYep, Canon R-series is parfocal through clever software.
- chabad360 4y agoIn theory it could, but that would require the lens to store the parameters for that function(which I don't believe existing lenses do). And additionally it would require a lens with a focus motor and a zoom motor (or even just feedback, which most don't have).
- kayfox 4y agoMost modern box lenses do exactly this, servos in the lens move the elements around to achieve the desired zoom and focus. Older box lenses use a convoluted set of gears to achieve the same thing. Some handheld ENG lenses for shoulder carried cameras get close to parfocal by making the lens elements travel in a complex way, but its not as perfect as the box lenses get.
- Pxtl 4y agoSame question but for surround-sound receivers.
- jojobas 4y agoMany TV shows episodes have been shot with Canon 5Ds, definitely not huge and not that expensive. This all seems to be about live tv.