Talk:Professional video camera

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Video camera tube#Image dissector|flying spot scanner]] Anchor Video camera tube#Image dissector links to a specific web page: Image dissector. The anchor (#Image dissector) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

General Cleanup

I've made a lot of edits and added some new sections, specifically a narrative for the history section to improve on the timeline list that was there before, and EFP as a category. Also moved some fo the pictures, and will be adding a remote camera section.

This article could use some more work, better illustrations and photos, more cites ( I added the Zettl text, which supports pretty much everything I've added or edited.) for history. The list of wikipedia refs is disorganized and not helpful, and could be cleaned up. The time line list in history should be pruned, added to, and cited better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBradford (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some small minor changes to reflect a better accuracy in the article: Rewrote a the Studio Camera section a little to emphasize that studio cameras are versatile today (not like in previous generations). Also corrected the analogue vs digital sentence. If there are some studios running analogue today, they will be in trouble as you just don't get spares. Almost every broadcaster is digital in one sense or another. Also, I have added the fibre optic cable to the Outside Broadcast camera section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.8.201 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Vs Broadcast Cameras

Professional cameras are the cheaper version of ENGs like the camcorder . The Digital Betacam is a broadcast camera and is of superior quality and is quite expensive in comparison. The article does not differentiate between these two categories. Thanks --mnb 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs new info

There is no mention of newer HD cams or photos of them like HDxcam by Sony that are standard on reality shows. Cost = 20,000- 100,000 dollars.

Also need a list of TV shows, Films and what cameras they use.

http://www.hdcameraguide.com/guide/camera_selector/reality-tv http://www.quora.com/Reality-Television/What-kind-of-camera-s-does-MTV-use-for-their-reality-shows

"Jon Lawrence, I have provided production oversight ... I have provided production oversight for north of $24 million in cable television production either as Exec in Charge of Production, as Line Producer or Production Manager. I have also Co-Ep'd and Produced new media series for both Comedy Central, and MyDamnChannel. Television 1 vote by Brandon Fletcher This varies wildly. Each individual production company chooses the cameras used in production; as long as the finished program master is in the format required by the network deliverables, pretty much anything goes.

Typically, prod co's will choose one of several well-proven field cameras for their shows. The choices are made by the Director of Photography (if there is one) or by the show producers, and also depend on the budget of the show.

The most oft-used workhorses are:
(mid-to-high budget reality)

Panasonic HDX900
Sony HDW F900
Panasonic SDX900

(low-to-mid budget reality)

Panasonic HVX200
Sony EX1 & EX3

There are a few other makes and models, but another point of consideration is how many of the same cameras are available at a given time when you're shooting. If you need, say, 12 matched cameras, your ability to get those will be limited to only a few models since rental houses can't stock a deep inventory of all models.

DSLR's are typically NOT used for reality at this point for a variety of reasons." --Ericg33 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JordoCo's recent edits

JordoCo has been editting this and a lot of related articles, inserting odd language, over- and inappropriate linking, too-specific stuff, etc. I revert some of the more recent bits here, but the rest of his changes need a good going over or revert, too. Anyone around to look at it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they're odd, and often peripheral to the topic. I'll try to go through and see what I catch. That last one was a doozy.--StevenBradford (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the "iconoscope" but not of the "image dissector" which was electronic and invented earlier

I noticed in the Chronology section that it refers to the "iconoscope" but it does not mention about Philo Farnsworth's "image dissector" - considered the inventor of Electronic Television: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth. The image dissector as far as I can see from the wikipedia article came before the "iconoscope" by a few years. It was initially designed in 1920 and it transmitted its first image in 1927 and demonstrated to the public in 1928. It seems it wasn't as sensitive as the iconoscope but I would think it is worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tes68 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]