why do television cameras cost so much

I saw a sony video camera for 100,000 USD which has 1080i HD mode and
other formats. called the The HDC910
what is the mechanism / technology in the camera that costs so much to
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
In a word; Quality
Bigger/better chips Better signal processing More resolution (HDV cheats a lot :-) Less noise The ability to do most of the setup fine tuning from a remote position A camera plate that doesn't wobble Far better lenses that can be changed More weight (makes it more stable) Ability to gen-lock (cause multiple cameras and other devices to be in sync) Crisp black and white viewfinder so you can tell if you are in focus The ability to program "looks" and store them on a memory card It looks professional (you may laugh, but sometimes size does matter) Full manual control of everything (pros don't use "auto" for anything)
Too many things to list, but I'm sure you get the idea
Reply to
David McCall
Large-size imaging chips (CCD) HD resolution imaging chips Low-volume, likely NOT high-yield imaging chips 12-bit video processing Super low-noise analog video circuits Likely custom VLSI image processing chips Low-volume camera production What the HD broadcast market will bear.
Note that price does NOT include: Lens (likely another $50000) Lens controls Viewfinder Camera cable Camera control unit
Reply to
Richard Crowley
There's no doubting the superiority of these megabuck HDCAM types over even the best HDV's, but the law of diminishing returns has put many producers and broadcasters into a bit of a tizzy. The bean counters bosses have traditionally relied upon the advice of retained techno geeks, who though on the brink of obsolescence (remember the days when one could earn a very good living as a computer operator), can still recite specifications and algorithm equations ad nauseum. Trouble is though that the human eye, being the most advanced HD system available to our industry, is starting to question the very high cost of the emperor's new cloths; i.e. TV viewers don't detect the difference when their favourite episode of JAG or what ever cuts between a Z1 and a 950 (sic). The fact that experts can go squinty eyed whilst searching intensely for evidence to the contrary is, in the real world, irrelevant to the business of TV. Expect manufactures to develop new market dynamics, with 1080 and 720 HD dropping in price like a stone, so don't go out and buy that HDCAM 950 just yet, even if only because the better HDCAM 750 is available significantly cheaper. The wonderfulness of 24p for film transfer, is only an NTSC reality issue. 25p PAL cameras have been doing an excellent job of this for years. The Arriflex-Locheed Martin 5,000 line (same as 35mm film) 'Super HD' has already been invented, OK so the recorder still has to be truck mounted, but then I worked with Sony's original HD format in the early 90's and that was truck mounted too. Now I have an HVR-A1(amongst other types) that nearly fits into a large pocket and produces 1080i images that are only a wafers width less astonishing, profoundly, it cost me considerably less than a couple of days rental of an HDCAM.
Reply to
? ?????? ??? ?????? news: snipped-for-privacy@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
I'm also wondering, now that everyone has trashed their VCRs and got DVD players(notice:players NOT recorders) and the big ones are still in a format war, HDDVD and blu ray are to come.I personally don't give a damn if I see the silly news on HD or regular PAL.I also got (one of the last to be produced) analogue 8mm camcorder just because it came for 400 euros with the HI-8 for 500 euros and a good sony mini dv for more than 800 in cash.I personally don't find that great a disantvantage that in the one or two movies I shoot a year (usually concerts my sister plays in or presentations) the people involved will get a VHS cassete instead of a dvd.The story goes on, because my computer is a celeron with only a cd burner, and is very unlikely to capture digital video without major upgrades...
-- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Reply to
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
That's only part of the story: the price curve is a "hockey stick" because the higher quality camcorders, being more expensive, sell fewer and lower volumne means the price needs to be higher!
If they could sell 100x the number of units the price would come down. What you CAN GET in a consumer camera would have been miraculous 10 yrs ago.
Reply to
Rick Merrill
A local TV Station in Houston, Texas, just purchased 5 JVC GY-HD100U cameras for field use. Apparently the quality is sufficiently high for their broadcast needs -- and they are a mere $5,000 each.
Sony may be the top of the line, but you are paying for much more than the camera itself!
Odds-N-Ends -----------------------------------
need4speed wrote:
Reply to
Few reasons.
Some will say quality, and they are right, to an extent. Professional cameras have much better lenses, sturdier construction, tighter tolerances, the whole gamut. The HDTV portion is certainly going to add a huge cost. Also, most professional cameras have an image sensor per primary colour, much higher quality, much higher price.
Aside from this is: volume. A consumer camera is often made in the ranges of 10s or 100s of thousands of units. Real pro cameras have MUCH smaller volumes. Mass production = lower cost.
And finally, they are that expensive since there is FAR less competition and the customers are "used" to paying insane prices, so the prices are inflated for that very reason.
Reply to

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.