I attended the Apple/Sony XDCAM HD seminar yesterday, and then last night went to the Midwest Independent Film Festival's documentary short night at the Landmark Theater in Chicago. One of the sponsors was www.zacuto.com.

Zacuto had three totally pimped out HVX200 packages on display, with reasonably informed tech guys. So, I got to see the cameras up close and in the flesh, and saw some great footage from both of them.

Here's the shocker: The best looking stuff I saw was from the HVX200. It was a music video that opened up the festival. I'd guesstimate the theater at 300-400 seats. The screen was maybe 30'. The XDCAM HD stuff I saw earlier in the day was shown from a truly magnificent 4K projector onto probably a 16-18' screen. The XDCAM HD material was amazingly clean, sharp and just overall darn good. I could not tell it was from a 1/2" chip camera. Shots that should have had a shallow depth of field did.

The XDCAM HD footage was presented by a very experienced cameraman who shoots lots of network footage, and the overall emphasis of the program seemed slanted to TV news. He said he felt XDCAM HD was the new Betacam, and I think he's probably right. The HVX200 footage I saw was a music video that kicked off the one night festival. Obviously shot by a pro, with good lighting.

So...don't you hate those camera evaluations in which they check out several cameras all together, and you want somebody to say which one is the best and they always weaselword their way out of it and say something like, "They all are great and they all have flaws."

Well...That's the way it is. Nirvana exists in the minds of Buddhists but not in the bodies of HD cameras.

The XDCAM HD camera--they had two F-350s there, both with very nice HD lenses--is about the same size as our DSR500WS, but significantly heavier. I expected it to be smaller and lighter. Maybe some of that heft comes from a heat sink for the laser? Who knows. However, it is very well balanced and sits nicely on the shoulder. I wanted to see the F-330 but they're promoting the top of the line, naturally. The F-350 sells for about $25K, and a lens is going to be at least $15K, I'm guessing. That may sound pricey for independent guys, but that's about what I paid for a BVW300 back in about 1989. And those were 1989 dollars.

I've read that the F-330 comes packaged with that silver colored lens you see in the photos for around $17K, but I've also read that they don't sell it that way in the U.S. My guess is that they do, although it may be a little more expensive. There are some differences in the two cameras other than the color. The main one is that the pricier camera shoots variable frame rate. You can do fast motion and slow motion up to 60fps. It's real slow motion, 60fps, no removal of frames, etc., and you can play it back instantly. That's a big deal, in my opinion. The F-350 also has a better viewfinder. I was a little underwhelmed by the viewfinder, so I probably would not like the one on the F-330. The flipout LCD screen, on the other hand is excellent. Oh yeah, the cheaper camera's viewfinder is a 4:3, while the F-350 is 16:9. They do everything they can to make you pop for the more expensive camera, but if you can live with the viewfinder and the cheap lens (assuming it comes packaged that way as an option) and don't need slomo, then it may be the best deal out there in terms of price/quality/value.

The XDCAM HD disc format is excellent. You get all the benefits of the tapeless workflow, but with all the advantages of tape. The discs are about 30 bucks and they hold an hour of HD footage at 35mbs, even more in the 25mbs mode, and even more than that in the 18mbs mode. The discs are probably more durable and rugged than tape, and Sony claims that you can reuse them up to 10,000 times. That would be significant for TV stations. In fact, I can't see P2 competing at all in the TV market anywhere near the current price point. I think Sony has hit a home run here. And, they announced there will be a 2/3" chip model out in a few months.

But I sure many of you want to know about the Panasonic HVX200. It's more "real" for the "prosumer" market. Check out that Zacuto site. They really pimp out the packages, and all the indy filmmakers in Chicago were lusting after that camera the same way the news photogs were drooling over the XDCAM HD.

Fully pimped out Zacuto-style, these cameras look like they're made for "film style" shooting. They look solid, heavy duty, and they are, actually. The HVX feels more beefy than the Z1, and it is heavier and bulkier. I hate to say it, but the HVX feels more solid than our DSR500. It just feels good.

What was really, really surprising to me was the music video I saw on the big screen. It was good, damn good. I don't know how it was edited or even what it was projected from. They may have had an HD deck in the projection room, or everything could have been assembled from a hard drive. Everything was obviously edited together for the presentation, no stopping and starting and changing tapes or anything like that. It was a professional projection situation. I'm guessing hard drive.

From the point of view of really sharp, clean video (shot at 24p), the XDCAM HD was awesome. You're going to have to get to a Sony F-900 or something like that to beat it.

For something that I would have thought was shot on film if they hadn't told me, the HVX200 looked great. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, however. Even though I saw the two cameras in action yesterday, I'm not trying to compare them, although I'm comparing them. I'm really looking at which one might work best for my situation, should I truly be in the market in the near future. Should I decide on the HVX200, for instance, that would not mean I think it's a better camera than the F-350.

The XDCAM HD stuff was shot in Israel, mostly exteriors, some interiors but all available light. The cameraman was deliberately pushing the camera, trying to learn how it would perform under really difficult conditions. I also saw some of that Iditarod race footage, which was shot with the very same camera (not the same model, the exact same camera--they shipped it from Alaska to Israel).The Sony was awesome in terms of latitude and contrast, low light as well as handling highlights. The Panasonic looked...well, it looked like what they advertise it looks like.

Again, they are two different tools, and shouldn't really be compared, and I saw the resulting images from each camera from two totally different styles of shoots. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if the HVX had been along with the XDCAM HD camera on the Israel shoot, its footage would not hold up nearly as well in a direct comparison. Bigger chips are gonna do a better job under those conditions. The difference in the long GOP 35mbs format and the DVCPRO HD format is not significant for normal shooting. It might become significant in terms of heavy effects, chroma keying, etc., but the 35mbs would be OK for that too. I saw no artifacts. I did see one funky edge in the music video from the HVX on one shot and I'm not sure what that was all about, but it wasn't horrible and didn't occur on any other shots that were practically the same. The F-350 is a 1/2" chip camera with a lens that costs more than an HVX loaded with 8 gig cards. It's a better camera. There--I said it. The F-350 is a better camera. But...I might very well buy the HVX200, if I were really in the market. Or not. So, don't think I'm saying the HVX is better than the 350 when I say I liked the look of the images better. I don't care what anybody says, a $40,000+ package with bigger chips is always gonna be better than a $6,000 setup. That doesn't mean I'd buy one over the other because of the differences.

Both systems have some downsides at this time. Final Cut Pro, for all the hype about the Apple/Sony relationship, just isn't quite ready for prime time yet. You can't edit the 35mbs footage with it (at this time). You can't edit proxy files with it (at this time). My friend who worked for Avid said you can with Avid. So presumably FCP will get themselves up to speed soon. You would think they would have done that before this big tour. Still, with those limitations, you can make it work. The demo camera guy used Black Magic for uncompressed importing of the XDCAM HD 35mbs footage.

Panasonic's P2 workflow is still a huge problem for me. The P2 cards only go to 8 gig, for about 20 minutes in the 24pn format. You can get a Firestore, but it doesn't work in 24p, and one of the demo guys was not really happy with it at all. You can get Panasonic's P2 Store, which only holds 60 gigs and is close to $2K. Ridiculous. Panasonic is, in my opinion, doing the same thing with the P2 cards as the oil companies are doing with the price of fuel. If the P2 card consists of a stack of 4 CF type cards all hooked together in a box, it does not have to be so expensive. If they believed in the future of the format, they would cut the cost by 80 percent. They would give you the P2 Store for 350 bucks when you buy the camera.

You can plug in a P2 card to a Mac laptop if you have a Powerbook. The new Macbook Pro has made the slot smaller, so you need an adapter. One of the tech dudes said he believes there is adapter, "...but I haven't seen one." I'll believe there is one when I see it. For the sake of argument, let's say there is one. You still have to spend about $3K for the computer. That's not a good solution. And even if you have the computer, that's not a safe place for you original footage. You would still have to back it up to something else.

The P2 Store drives seem pretty good, except for the high price and low capacity. If the P2 Store held 120 gigs instead of just 60, I could see the $1800 price tag, even though it is still too high. If the P2 Store was $600 and held 120-200 gigs, and if the P2 cards held 32 gigs each and sold for $400, I would have already ordered this camera.

Even though the whole P2 thing is a bit ridiculous at this time, I haven't totally given up on the camera because I like it so much. The problem is, anybody who buys the camera is putting a lot of faith in the whole P2 concept. I like to be a bit more scientific when it comes to spending money. For instance, I could formulate a reasonably sound hypothesis that the XDCAM HD format is going to be around for a long time. Sony is selling the cameras to TV stations like Betacams sold in the '80s and '90s, ie., like hotcakes. In the meantime, people who are seduced by the HVX200 are running around trying to come up with a safe and cost effective workflow.

I repeat: If Panasonic really and truly believes in their P2 concept, they should drop the prices so people will buy into it. Not the price of the camera. It's fine the way it is. But I really believe they're trying to milk the card users and P2 Store users for all they can. Skimming the cream off the top--while Sony floods the market with cheap XDCAM discs.

The whole P2 workflow issue is always going to be time consuming and inconvenient (with today's technology). However, it could be justified if it became cost effective. For the normal day to day type of shooting I do, at least 5 of the 8 gig P2 cards would be essential, and at least two or 3 of the P2 Store hard drives. With enough of those drives, the footage could be transferred even while shooting, or after a shoot, and then loaded into the editing system where they'd be transferred to DLT tapes for storage and then sucked into FCP for editing. It's impractical to try to separate out the files from an 8 gig card into smaller pieces to fit on 4.7 gig DVDs.

In the near future, when Blu-ray DVD becomes a reality, the DLT tapes could be eliminated and DVDs could be used. They would then become the original "tapes." Maybe somebody would come out with a Blu-ray small, portable, bullet-proof recorder that you could stick a p2 card into and burn it off to DVD, much like the P2 Store. Only cheaper and faster.

As I said, I haven't given up on the camera yet. I will take advantage of a free half day rental offered to me by Lights On Kansas City when I have time and check it out in greater detail, maybe do a side-by-side with the DSR500. Just hypothetically-speaking, I'll consider for a moment the possibility that it might be a good thing to replace the DSR500 with the HVX200. I know that's heresy. Nobody goes from a 2/3" chip camera to a 1/3" chip camera. But, the times they are a changin'. It could be done. Perhaps. Why? It gets you into HD at a reasonable cost, better chroma keying, shooting 24pn, and the thing that everybody likes...the ability to use a cheap depth of field adapter. Yes, the ol' "35mm depth of field" thing.

Like the Redrock M2. And my ancient Nikkor lenses. From what I've seen on this trip, with that combo, I could con people into thinking we had shot 35mm film. True.

The Redrock thing is about a thousand bucks. The camera is about $6K. That's $7K. Five 8 gig cards would be another $6K. Three P2 Store devices would be close to $6K (I'm rounding off here). Let's add a matte box and some filters for about another $1K. What's that...about $20K.

Not bad at all. The DSR500WS cost about $16K 5 years ago. If I didn't already have a good lens, that would have been another $15K. So there's $30K already. And the two decks were about $9K each. So we were close to $50K for that purchase.

The XDCAM HD F-350 is about $25K. Let's assume we can get a decent lens for $15K. That's $40K. The XDCAM HD player is somewhere around $8K, I think. I don't recall for sure, but in that neighborhood. The recorder is more than that but who needs a recorder? What're ya gona do with an XDCAM HD master? If something's gonna go to Digibeta or HDCAM, you take the hard drive to the place that has Digibeta and/or HDCAM and thereyago.

So, about $50K to get into XDCAM HD. Don't need but one deck, since the files would be accessible via our network.

The XDCAM HD switchover would be about two and a half times more expensive. The advantages: Secure, solid, reliable, hassle-free XDCAM discs. You shoot, pop out the disc and you're done. With P2, you shoot, being careful to not overshoot, you transfer the stuff to hard drives, you load into the computer, you back up through the network to the DLT, you file the DLT tapes, which are now down to about $40 apiece for 40 gigs, 80 gigs compressed (I guess you could compress them? Who knows.)

Forty gigs on a DLT, from shooting in the 24pn mode, would be about 200 minutes, I think (unless I'm confusing myself here). The 24pn mode gives you about 10 minutes per 4 gig card, I understand. So, 200 minutes for 40 bucks...that's about the same price as DVCAM is now. Maybe a little less. Not bad.

But the hassle and danger of a screwup is great. Forget the cost of the P2 cards and P2 Store devices, and the cost of DLT tapes, and the cost of a DLT machine (since we already have one). Is the hassle, the danger, the time it takes to manipulate all that data worth it? For every minute of footage recorded, that's another minute of time to transfer to the P2 Store. And actually, in "verify mode," it will take longer. I don't know how much longer, but an hour could take 2 hours to transfer in "verify mode." And then you have to move the files to the editing computer. Check them. Then send them out to DLT. That takes overnight, probably. THEN once you're sure you've got it to DLT, you erase the P2 Store drives. It could take 3 hours or more to manipulate the data from every hour of shooting that's done.

That's a lot to ask.

But, dammit, I really like that camera.

C'mon, Panasonic--show us you care. Get with the program. Make it work. You're stopping the revolution from happening by your Big Oil policies.

This morning, back in Kansas City, I read some rather negative things about the HVX200, specifically in terms of its lower resolution in shooting wide, panoramic landscapes. This, of course, is a problem for any small chip camera. However, because the 200 has lowest resolution of all the 1/3" chip HD cameras, it probably does look worse than the Sony and Canon and JVC. In reading these posts, it occurred to me that the great looking music video I saw in Chicago was all shot in a studio, on a set, with professional lighting. Other than a couple of full shots of the band, there were no wide shots.

Once again, the point is brought home that there is no perfect camera, especially for under $10K. And, should you decide that you can live with the whole P2 data thing and are thrilled over my praise of the camera, you really need to check it out for yourself, as I am going to do soon. Even though I saw a complete production, and have held the camera and inspected it in fair detail, I still haven't actually used it for anything. When I do, I will get some long shots focused at infinity and see what it looks like.