Which are better more professional cameras ? The enormous sized TV cameras or the movie cameras (which are usually smaller and cheaper) ?
I see some enormous sized cameras at important sport event in stadiums, they had very big size, and they are much more expensive and bigger than the cameras are used in movies.
If that full professional TV cameras are so big (packed with lot of electronics and bigger optics and larger sensor) and have usually 3-4X times higher cost (they start over 250 000 $), I think TV cameras are better than movie cameras..
I also read, that Movie cameras had not even enough good to record large sport events, like soccer matches in stadiums. The knowledge of their electronics, their small lens systems, and much smaller sensors and other important properties are ridiculously bad/weak for such demanding tasks...
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Last edited by Truthler; 21st Sep 2021 at 12:02.
You have to back up, and think about WHAT and HOW they are trying to capture.
Your image of that sports TV camera system (and it is a SYSTEM), shows a quite small actual camera. It is eclipsed by the anton-bauer battery pack on the back, the tripod/fluid-head-mount (with handles) on the bottom, by the electronic viewfinder on the top, and especially by the fluid-assisted electronic-enhanced and stabilized Zoom lens - that BIG rectangle at the end of the camera (along with its supporting mount sled). That is a 20x zoom that is resolvable beyond the 8k resolution that the camera is capable of. This is necessary to SMOOTHLY cover the wide changes in focal length necessary in such things as sporting events.
Most film/digital-cinema cameras have bigger storage needs, little viewfinding needs, and a completely different lens (though sometimes still large, particularly when gobos, filters or french flags/lensshades are added). Often, instead of regularly using zooms, in cinema one most regularly uses fixed focal length "Prime" lenses, with the zoom being the exception instead of the rule (relaxed in recent years, and depending on the content). Mainly because most often in cinema, the subject and its placement has already been thought out ahead of time, blocked, and appropriate corresponding lens pre-chosen. And the aesthetic is different also, as there is less acceptance of wild changes in realtime zoom length in more traditional genres besides sports. Note: primes are much simpler optically/mechanically so they can be smaller. If they are still large, it is usually because of the need to pass through enormous amounts of light, with few abberations/distortions.
In professional cameras, one picks the most appropriate tool for the job. TV (esp. sports) is a different job than Cinema, so of course the tools will be accordingly different.
And money is not as big a factor, if one calculates in the overall cost of doing the job right, AND the profit gained from doing it right. Then, whatever investment is appropriately justifiable for the outcome is usually acceptable in its cost. Quality lenses, in either discipline, are often the most expensive portion.
Regarding sensors: this is both an historical difference and an aesthetic difference. TV sensors started small and have gotten bigger, to where they are starting to get close to matching cinema sensors, but many many sensors still hover in the 2/3" (= ~11mm diagonal) range, whereas cinema sensors have (not counting smaller formats like 8mm and 16mm) ALWAYS been ~25mm diagonal (for 35mm film and more traditional E-cinema cams) or larger. Sometimes MUCH larger. The Arri Alexa is almost 60mm diagonally.
What this means is that - small sensors have wider depth of field and lower sensitivity to light (so more noise especially with low light), whereas large sensors have narrow depth of field and higher light sensitivity (so lower noise in low light). For TV, especially sports, depth of field is important, and most sporting events are performed in places with HIGH amount of light, so the insensitivity isn't too much of a hindrance. For Cinema, narrow depth of field is an IMPORTANT aesthetic look (allowing the director to guide the focus of the viewers' eyes), and LOTS of material is shot is lower light, plus since the material is meant to be less transitory, one wants it to be pristine and less noisy as a master, in order for it to hold up better during processing (happens often in cinema). TV sports programming has very little processing, and is fairly transitory (show it once and forget it).
You can't just throw around these superlatives without having context, or - more importantly - facts, to back them up. Plus, who is going around saying "pro A is more professional than pro B", anyway? That seems a little juvenile, or trolling.
Last edited by Cornucopia; 21st Sep 2021 at 13:04.
These studio cameras are between 80kg to 100kg. They had studio lens system (only the lens are 25-30kg) while movie cameras had primitive light- mobil objectives. The heavy and big TV camera lens system provide much better depth of fields , larger zoom range too.
The cinema cameras are often nisy, not only the asthetic usual cause of the traditional film grain. They like it nolisy and don't process it.
A TV camera is around 80-120 kg, nobody can film with it without heavy tripod system, movie cameras are light, and they had less electronics.
The difference between small objective for mobil so-called CINEMA cameras, VS. 5-6X more expensive bigger TV camera lenses (25kg).
[Attachment 60842 - Click to enlarge]
How can you explain the very high price of TV Cameras (starts 250 000 $) over the cinema cameras which are more cheaper even in high end category. (They are not even the same price category)
[Attachment 60843 - Click to enlarge]
Last edited by Truthler; 21st Sep 2021 at 13:22.
That video, and your graphic, just re-iterated exactly what I told you.
I think you are also refering to (other) sources that are antiquated, particularly in the weight expectations. And - like I already said - the TV camera itself is fairly small (there is a range). It is all the accessories that can make it larger/heavier. If you need an ENG camera, you can bet that it will only be 2-20kg, because that is necessary for the job (MOBILITY). Studio cameras are different than field cams. Sports cams are different than news cams. NOT necessarily the camera, but the SYSTEM.
I already explained the need for expensive lenses in SPORTS cameras (wide, fluid, stabilized zoom range). Did you not even read my response?
Even that is not the only camera used in a sporting event. There are cams used mobile-ly on the sidelines by runners, cams on tripods on the sidelines on tripods and pedestals, overhead/runner cams, body cams, goodyear blimp cams, studio cams...
Maybe you should specify which ones you are talking about and not conflate them, because they all have divergent needs.
Sounds like you are trying to compare cameras solely by their lenses. If so, then say so, and give your criteria (sports, action, stable, wide zoom ratio..). If that is it, then duh, that is why that setup is the most expensive in the lens department.
Do you see cinema needing something that expensive in a lens? Surprise, surprise - their cams are more expensive. So expensive that you cannot afford to buy a camera, one must rent it.
Have you EVER worked with one of those cameras? or specialty lenses? (I have)
Don't be a Monday morning coach, or worse a Fantasy Football fanboi the gets worked up by a particular spec, irrespective of context.
I think the OP is comparing apples to oranges, Each one has its own use, TV camera's are for live events where the cameraman is far away from the scene like at the far side of the stadium or at the corner of the show/news room and needs a gigantec lens to get as perfect of a picture as if the camera is close to the faces with a normal small lens without disturbing the scene. The movie cameras are geared towards quality shots even if it takes putting the camera in front of the actor's face or at different weird positions acording to the action being filmed. News gathering is a mixed of both but mobility and speed to get it ready is the key factor. And finally let's not get into film vs digital because it's a different can of warms.
Again, that video focused primarily on the LENS.
The camera was barely mentioned, and wasn't even mentioned by model name. Most likely it was either a standard broadcast Sony, Panasonic, etc. camera (in which case, it is highly likely that cinema cameras CAN "beat" it, whatever you mean by that) or it WAS a digital cinema camera, so it's the same.
Yup, you're just trolling.
There is no such a penomenon for the cameraman: " wait a minute, I had to change the optics for this new scene"
They can provide and collect enough light even in the worst low light scenes.
Full automatism is a huge difference.
Last edited by Truthler; 28th Sep 2021 at 05:07.
Thank you for conceding my point that it was all about the lens and not the camera. Perhaps you should revise the title of this thread to more accurately reflect that truth.
Regardless, you are mistaken however about those kinds of broadcast lenses. 20:1 is a wide range, but it still does not encompass all the possible focal lengths that might be necessary in a production. But if the lens DOES need to be changed, standard primes and simple zooms take only 2-3 minutes for a pro to swap out and recalibrate. The lens you are glorifying is not so simple. It is quite heavy and would require a team to safely dismantle. It also needs its supporting sled, as I mentioned. And that sled changes the center of gravity, so a new sled or no sled would replace it requiring further adjustments to the camera's positioning on the tripod, taking even longer. Add to that that the specialty lens (and it IS considered a SPECIALTY lens) is comparatively more fragile, so while it is theoretically able to be changed out in the field (taking maybe 1/2 hour to an hour to re-setup), in practice it never is, but rather always done at the shop.
Again, it has an interesting place in production, but is still an exception and not the norm for very good reason, price not the sole factor.