[David C jones]

Thank you all for your helpful insight. I’ll keep it progressive :o)

[David C jones]

This is one of those dicy situations that I’ve found myself in before. I’ve had to draw up a kind of a contract stating what the footage would be used for (type of program, where it would air or be shown), and for how long I had the rights to use the footage within the documentary. In your case, it’s all your own footage but you still might need to be specific in the release, you want her to sign, about what the footage will be used for. However, don’t limit yourself, ether. Make it clear that you (or your company) will own all rights to the footage. You could state that the footage will only be used in the said documentary but, make that for a limited time. Hope this helps and isn’t too late!

[David C jones]

Well, how much money ARE you willing to spend? There are basically two types of shotgun (or boom) mics: electret condenser and “true” condenser. Electret condensers are the same mics you find on ENG cameras. They’re basically fine for picking up general ambient sound, but even putting them on a boom isn’t going to get you the sound you’re looking for (unless the mic is no more than two feet away, all the time, and there isn’t any other background sound going on). They start at around $250. True condensers can cost four times that much but, they can also “hear” about four times as good. They also reject background sound much better.

Now, all that being said, and considering your budget, I would recommend the Audio-Technica 4073a. It’s the least expensive of the “true” condensers (at around $549) and, unlike a cheap electret, you can always re-sell it for about what you paid for it on Ebay. I personally have never used one but, I’ve heard good things about it. Otherwise you’re looking at spending upwards of $1,000, and that’s without a windscreen! Of course you could always rent one :o)

[David C jones]

I couldn’t agree more. The Lectrosonics 411 actually sounds like it’s hardwired!!! I had heard that from someone else and did my own side-by-side comparison. I could not tell the difference! Also, the advantage to going with a digital-hybrid is that you keep the digital audio but send it using an analog carrier which, if you find yourself dealing with a bad RF situation, will at least give you some sort of signial (as opposed to an all digital system where the signial is ether there or it isn’t).

[David C jones]

Hi Paul-

I actually agree with most of what you say. I would even take it one step further and ask the question, why do we need so many versions of a product within a given format? For example, Sony had the BVW line of Batacam SP. Then they came out with the PVW line for those who couldn’t afford the BVW stuff. Then, they came out with the UVW line. In fact, they also did this with their Umatic stuff as well. And let’s not forget High 8 (what were they thing, there?!). Then, we had Digital Batacam. But wait, there’s more: Batcam SX, the Hybrid BVW D-600, and DV CAM (presumably to compete with DVC-Pro). Yes, I know…they did all this to get as much of the various (perceived) markets as possible. But it seems to me that a more cost-effective way to do this would be to make one model and offer various (addible) options to it.

There are other vendors out there making their own cameras/formats but they seem to be tanking: the Ikegami Editcam, GVG’s camera (not sure if it ever came out), and I think the jury is still out on JVC’s stuff though, some stations have adopted it. I do think it just goes to show that consumers (even professional ones) want a single format. If only the vendors would get it!

[David C jones]

The truth is, there hasn’t been a standard format since the days of 3/4″! After Sony came out with Batacam in ’84, and Panasonic came out with M-II (remember that?), it bacame “format-of-the-month” time with those two and everybody else. As I’m sure others will point out on here, there will never be another single format again. As to the why, I leave that question to those better informed that me. It probably has to do with the whole VHS vs. Batamax debacle, though…lol.

[David C jones]

I’m looking into getting the same set-up you have…mattebox and all. That’s interesting about not being able to close the LCD screen. I was wondering if the mattebox gets in the way of a mounted shotgun mic. Have you done any handheld work with it with the mattebox attached? How’s the balance?

[David C jones]

I’m still wondering why there is no color wheel on the 500 (like there is on the 2000/3000). There is only an ND filter wheel.

I tend to disagree about the HPX-500 not being worthy of a $22,000 lens. The 500 is the same camera as the 2000 but without the codec option. Yes, I know there are other differences like 4 card slots instead of 5, better viewfinder, and a wireless slot. But in terms of image quality I can’t find any differences. But, maybe I’m missing something?

[David C jones]

That’s interesting about the cac lenses. I think I’m still living in the ’80’s/early ’90’s where there was a clear difference between the high-end and low-end lenses. And you didn’t have that many choices, ether. I will probably have to go with a less expensive lens for now but I am interested as to how much of a difference there is.

[David C jones]

One thing I was wondering about: what’s the deal with the filter wheel? It has 1 marked as “clear” and the rest as ND’s. What about color temp? Or is filter 1 3200, and the rest 5600?

And I agree about getting a good lens. In fact, that was the same idea I had; spending more (twice as much, even) on better glass.