PDA

View Full Version : Request 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 internal for the DVX200!



Jaime Valles
04-19-2015, 07:13 PM
Hello, all.

PLEASE NOTE: This thread is not for people that want an interchangeable lens camera.

EDIT: I received a reply from the PR people, that they were forwarding my comments to the appropriate product managers!

I just sent an email to Cohn Wolfe (panasonicb2b.pr@cohnwolfe.com) and Pat Lamb (patlambpr@gmail.com) who are the two names on the press release for the DVX200. The email is requesting the inclusion of internal 10-bit 4:2:2 recording in 4K. I urge you all to write them as well and ask for this feature to be included. They still have many months before the camera is released, and if enough of us make noise about this through the proper channels, we might make a difference.

Also, this is not an unrealistic request. We can't go asking for the moon here (S35 sensor! 16+ stops dynamic range! Constant f/1.4 20x lens!) because those things simply won't happen. But a higher bit depth and color space is not out of the question. Let's concentrate on getting internal 4K in 10-bit 4:2:2.

Below is the actual email I sent, which you can use as a template if you wish (obviously, you need to change the name and personalize it so it fits your particular situation). Let's make this happen! :smile:



To whom it may concern:


My company is very interested in your newly announced AG-DVX200 camera for our event video production company. Since the camera still has a few more months before being released, I wanted to request a feature that would be very beneficial if it were included in the final product.


If there is any way that the camera had the option to record 4K footage internally in 10-bit 4:2:2, it would be a huge leap forward in image quality over the standard 8-bit 4:2:0 currently employed in other 4K cameras on the market. The ability to capture smooth gradients (such as a clear blue sky or solid color wall) without the appearance of banding and blockiness is made possible by recording at the higher bit depth and color space that 10-bit 4:2:2 provides. This is especially true when doing heavy color-grading during post-production. I feel this camera would be a massive success in the world of event shooters, run-&-gun, wedding video, documentaries, and indie films if it could record 4K internally at 10-bit 4:2:2.


I know I speak for many, many professional shooters when I ask that this be one of the recording formats included in the AG-DVX200. I look forward to learning more about this exciting camera in the coming months.


Thank you for your time.


Sincerely,


Jaime VallÚs
AJV Media
Video, Photography & Graphic Design
www.ajvmedia.com (http://www.ajvmedia.com/)

Bassman2003
04-19-2015, 07:16 PM
Great move. I am going to do the same although I was just going to ask for 10 bit 4:2:2 in HD as well as the same menu structure as the PX270 (color matrix) so they can intercut seamlessly.

Jaime Valles
04-19-2015, 07:24 PM
Great move. I am going to do the same although I was just going to ask for 10 bit 4:2:2 in HD as well as the same menu structure as the PX270 (color matrix) so they can intercut seamlessly.
Sure, 10-bit 4:2:2 in HD as well would be fantastic. I assume if they can do it in 4K, then they can do it in HD!

I've never used the PX270, but if you say it's good, I believe you! :)

Camera Expert
04-19-2015, 10:46 PM
Yes 10 bit and 4:2:2 would be nice. We're living in a new time and 8 bit should not be used in professional cameras anymore.

With the speed of some SD cards nowadays such as the Lexar 2000x series (They'll be even faster SD cards by the time the DVX200 is released), Panasonic could also give it AVC Intra based codecs and that's if the camera itself is able to handle that in the 4K modes. We've already had AVC Intra HD on the (Hacked) GH2. You'd think with today's technologies, The DVX200 wouldn't have a problem making 4K files using AVC Intra.

Sumfun
04-19-2015, 11:07 PM
Not sure if writing to the PR reps will have any effect on the camera features. PR people deal with the press and rarely give any technical feedback to engineering. You need to go to Panasonic's marketing, engineering, or management. Like this guy: http://panasonicprovideo.tumblr.com/post/116206425587/dvx100-something-new-at-nab

Mike Harvey
04-19-2015, 11:29 PM
I don't think emailing the two names on the press release is unrealistic. If their name is on the press release, than it's because they're the go to people for all inquiries. If they get more than a couple, they'll forward them to the appropriate folks.

And 10bit 4:2:2 is not unrealistic. I get Panasonic not wanting to include it into a non-P2 camera... but if they're going to stick the GH4 codecs in it (a few of which at 100mb/s+), than AVC-LongG 50mb/s (or even just 25mb/s) isn't out of line.

DLD
04-20-2015, 05:44 AM
What if this requires a more powerful processing chip?

Would you guys pay extra for it?

Personally, I don't see 10-bit 422 included until GH5 comes out with it first and that may be a while.

Bassman2003
04-20-2015, 05:49 AM
This is why I am focusing on 10bit for HD recording. We know the camera can process 1080p or 720p in 10bit. 4k60p might be too large of a task. But in the end, I do not see how this compares to the GH5 or the GH4. Either Panasonic wants to play ball with this camera or it does not. Saying a $5,000 camera needs to mirror a $1,400 DSLR's codec lineup is kind of silly imho. It has a different sensor and different everything else. I do not see it being related to the GH line outside of sensor size.

Mike Harvey
04-20-2015, 07:47 AM
This is why I am focusing on 10bit for HD recording. We know the camera can process 1080p or 720p in 10bit. 4k60p might be too large of a task. But in the end, I do not see how this compares to the GH5 or the GH4. Either Panasonic wants to play ball with this camera or it does not. Saying a $5,000 camera needs to mirror a $1,400 DSLR's codec lineup is kind of silly imho. It has a different sensor and different everything else. I do not see it being related to the GH line outside of sensor size.

I think 10bit 4:2:2 4k is a bit much to ask for at this price point. 1080p? Totally reasonable. And as far as adding to the cost... an extra $200-$300 for it to be included, or $500 for the new Blackmagic Video Assist. I get that 8bit will be adaquate for most applications, but if they really want to capture the magic of the DVX moniker, 10bit would go a long way towards making "special", and I think most people would be will to pay a little extra for it.

roxics
04-20-2015, 07:59 AM
I think 10bit 4:2:2 4k is a bit much to ask for at this price point. 1080p? Totally reasonable.

If Blackmagic can offer 4K ProRes and Raw in a $3K camera, I would hope Panasonic can offer 10bit 4:2:2 H.264 in a $5000 camera. I realize it's more compressed but come on. In fact they should be offering ProRes as an option, at least for 1080p.

Jaime Valles
04-20-2015, 10:21 AM
Well, I just received a reply to my original email from the Panasonic PR person! They said they were forwarding my comments to the appropriate product managers. I call that a success! Please send them emails; they are being received, and we can plant the seed in their minds that this is something we really want!

Jaime Valles
04-20-2015, 10:22 AM
I think 10bit 4:2:2 4k is a bit much to ask for at this price point. 1080p? Totally reasonable. And as far as adding to the cost... an extra $200-$300 for it to be included, or $500 for the new Blackmagic Video Assist. I get that 8bit will be adaquate for most applications, but if they really want to capture the magic of the DVX moniker, 10bit would go a long way towards making "special", and I think most people would be will to pay a little extra for it.

I would certainly be willing to pay an extra $200-$500 to have 10-bit 4:2:2 4K in the DVX200.

David Jimerson
04-20-2015, 10:48 AM
Well, I just received a reply to my original email from the Panasonic PR person! They said they were forwarding my comments to the appropriate product managers. I call that a success! Please send them emails; they are being received, and we can plant the seed in their minds that this is something we really want!

Nice work.

jimagine
04-20-2015, 12:06 PM
It's nice to see a realistic, courteous letter written to the proper channels.
Assuming that camera companies "get it" is like assuming that the government, oil companies, or any entity with boards and layers of bureaucracy, has the ability to see or know what people actually want or need.

If you work with companies, and I do all the time, you learn early on, what may seem obvious to you, isn't to them.
It's why they hire companies like mine - to show them the best way to relate to their customers and help them understand them better.

This is one realistic way to effect change and decision making.
Getting a respectful petition going with multiple signatures from professionals (focused on one or two doable improvements to a prototype) is another smart step.

And whoever made the comment about a $3k BM camera delivering 4k raw and ProRes to SD cards is exactly why this should be encouraged and seriously considered by Panasonic.

Bruce Watson
04-20-2015, 12:24 PM
Done.

Jaime Valles
04-20-2015, 12:36 PM
It's nice to see a realistic, courteous letter written to the proper channels.
Assuming that camera companies "get it" is like assuming that the government, oil companies, or any entity with boards and layers of bureaucracy, has the ability to see or know what people actually want or need.

If you work with companies, and I do all the time, you learn early on, what may seem obvious to you, isn't to them.
It's why they hire companies like mine - to show them the best way to relate to their customers and help them understand them better.

This is one realistic way to effect change and decision making.
Getting a respectful petition going with multiple signatures from professionals (focused on one or two doable improvements to a prototype) is another smart step.

And whoever made the comment about a $3k BM camera delivering 4k raw and ProRes to SD cards is exactly why this should be encouraged and seriously considered by Panasonic.

A formal petition is a great idea! Somebody who isn't me should start one (as I already emailed them about this) but I'd definitely sign it once it's written out!

DLD
04-20-2015, 01:04 PM
If Blackmagic can offer 4K ProRes and Raw in a $3K camera, I would hope Panasonic can offer 10bit 4:2:2 H.264 in a $5000 camera. I realize it's more compressed but come on. In fact they should be offering ProRes as an option, at least for 1080p. Except BMD gives you an X-set of features and DVX-200 gives you a Y-set and they are different and, if you want both X and Y, you'd have to pay a lot more for it.

And some folks would while others wouldn't. DVX200 is a run&gun camera, where presumably footage isn't going to be graded heavily and, with a straight-out file, 8 bit is sufficient. Raise the price by $500 and suddenly your market niche goes that-a-way.

Besides, the today prices aren't going to be tomorrow's prices. Market is getting more competitive and the trend is down, not up.

DLD
04-20-2015, 01:08 PM
If you work with companies, and I do all the time, you learn early on, what may seem obvious to you, isn't to them... And the obvious reason for that is that Jaime may be speaking for 20% of possible DVX200 users and Panasonic is interested in the other 80% also. And the company's main task is to maximize its sales, not to cater to every whim. In that regard, an overlapping commonality is more important than minor deviations.

Which is why you have the aftermarket.

DPStewart
04-20-2015, 01:25 PM
And the obvious reason for that is that Jaime may be speaking for 20% of possible DVX200 users and Panasonic is interested in the other 80% also. And the company's main task is to maximize its sales, not to cater to every whim. In that regard, an overlapping commonality is more important than minor deviations.

Which is why you have the aftermarket.


I think 10-bit 4:2:2 is smart for ALL of their market.
We are RAPIDLY entering a time wherein certain higher specs are going to become mainstream talking points. Even the least educated buyer wants "better" and once word gets around - and it's starting to - that 8-bit 4:2:0 is "obsolete" or "not professional" then the whole market will want it. Even if they don't understand what it means. Just like "4K" has done.

This one is smart. And it's broad.
For them not to do it would be an error.

Bassman2003
04-20-2015, 01:42 PM
Great to hear about the response. In my view, this should not be a cost issue. Adding a 10bit 4:2:2 HD recording option is not anything new. 10bit 4k is probably too much as it is not standard at all yet. Run and gun or not, hampering a camera at the recording stage is not cool these days. It is about sales from my point of view.

combatentropy
04-20-2015, 01:51 PM
Jaime Valles's request is entirely reasonable in 2015.

Chroma subsampling was needed 10 or 20 years ago, because compact media had such a narrow throat. Even DVCAM and DVCPRO were 4:1:1.

Today's commodity media can handle it. Some SD cards guarantee they can write 30 megabytes per second, which is 240 megabits per second. Furthermore some (http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-sd-card/) actually write twice that or more, 60-80 megabytes per second (480-640 megabits per second). Even those still cost less than $2 per gigabyte.

For comparison, ProRes 422 HQ 1080p 24fps is 22 megabytes per second. I'm assuming 4K would be 4x that, at 88 megabytes per second. So just out of reach of the best SDXC cards. But just barely, and this is ProRes, a mild, intraframe-only compression. If you start talking H.264 or H.265, you can keep the data rate of even 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 well within the limits of high-end SDXC cards.

That's today. In a year, it will be even sillier, as SD cards probably double in speed.

Mike Harvey
04-20-2015, 02:17 PM
And some folks would while others wouldn't. DVX200 is a run&gun camera, where presumably footage isn't going to be graded heavily and, with a straight-out file, 8 bit is sufficient. Raise the price by $500 and suddenly your market niche goes that-a-way.

This camera seems less run & gun and more jack-of-all-trades. But, I would think run & gun scenerios would be even more reason to include it. I almost always have to do some sort of color correction because I'm often shooting where I get partial control of lighting at best, and the camera has a hard time white balancing the mixed lighting. Plus, the overwhelming number of wedding videographers that I see (who would make up a huge market for this camera) do some sort of color grading. Vlog + 10bit 4:2:2 could be a huge selling point for them.

And is the difference between, say, $4,700 and $5,000 really going to be a big sticking point between the for customer base for this camera?

David Jimerson
04-20-2015, 02:57 PM
I agree; I don't get at all where it can be labeled (dismissed as?) a "run & gun" camera.

Barry_Green
04-20-2015, 03:26 PM
Chroma subsampling was needed 10 or 20 years ago, because compact media had such a narrow throat.

Today's commodity media can handle it.
For 1080p this argument may have merit, although -- are you saying everything should be recorded 4:4:4? Because practically nothing is. 4:2:2 is chroma subsampling, it is considered an effective and efficient way to save space without noticeably impacting the visual fidelity of the picture. And, for many folks, 4:2:0 has served to be sufficient as well.

But here's the kicker -- asking for 4:2:2 4K is just silly. As harddrive and I have harped on forever -- you cannot cannot cannot get 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 out of a Bayer sensor that means anything. You can't get higher than 1920x1080 color resolution out of a 4K bayer image sensor. Sure, you could record it as 4:4:4, but that's just silly, it'd be effectively digital up-rezzing. If you want a true 4:4:4, you need three chips, all recording the native frame size. Or, it takes a massively oversampling sensor, such as the RGB Stripe system as employed in the Sony F35, where there are 5,760 pixels on each line of the sensor, used to record 1920 4:4:4.

4:2:0 in 4K will be plenty to record anything this camera, or any 4K single-chip camera, can produce. There is zero point in asking for more.

So 4:2:2 (or 4:4:4) should be considered as possibilities for 1080p recording, but not for 4K. And, even then, 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p is within the realm of possibility when recording 4K source material; downconverting 8-bit 4:2:0 4K down to 1080p will result in 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p. Not entirely convenient to do it that way, but it is possible to do so, even if the onboard recording were only 8-bit 4:2:0.

Stephen Mick
04-20-2015, 03:34 PM
For 1080p this argument may have merit, although -- are you saying everything should be recorded 4:4:4? Because practically nothing is. 4:2:2 is chroma subsampling, it is considered an effective and efficient way to save space without noticeably impacting the visual fidelity of the picture. And, for many folks, 4:2:0 has served to be sufficient as well.

But here's the kicker -- asking for 4:2:2 4K is just silly. As harddrive and I have harped on forever -- you cannot cannot cannot get 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 out of a Bayer sensor that means anything. You can't get higher than 1920x1080 color resolution out of a 4K bayer image sensor. Sure, you could record it as 4:4:4, but that's just silly, it'd be effectively digital up-rezzing. If you want a true 4:4:4, you need three chips, all recording the native frame size. Or, it takes a massively oversampling sensor, such as the RGB Stripe system as employed in the Sony F35, where there are 5,760 pixels on each line of the sensor, used to record 1920 4:4:4.

4:2:0 in 4K will be plenty to record anything this camera, or any 4K single-chip camera, can produce. There is zero point in asking for more.

So 4:2:2 (or 4:4:4) should be considered as possibilities for 1080p recording, but not for 4K. And, even then, 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p is within the realm of possibility when recording 4K source material; downconverting 8-bit 4:2:0 4K down to 1080p will result in 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p. Not entirely convenient to do it that way, but it is possible to do so, even if the onboard recording were only 8-bit 4:2:0.

100219

Mike Harvey
04-20-2015, 04:14 PM
Pat Lamb just responded to say that they're passing along my feedback (inclusion of a 10bit 4:2:2 option, at the very least AVC-LongG 50) to the appropriate product managers.

combatentropy
04-20-2015, 05:12 PM
Thanks. AVC-Long-50 is a superb codec and I'm surprised it was not already going to have it.

DPStewart
04-20-2015, 07:13 PM
100219

And soda just came flying out of my nose I laughed so hard at that!

Barry_Green
04-20-2015, 07:47 PM
100219
Okay, let me try it this way...

Asking for 4K 4:2:2 on the DVX200 is functionally the equivalent of putting a 300mph speedometer on your VW Beetle. It may make you feel special, but it isn't going to change the car's capability whatsoever... it ain't goin' 300 mph...

DLD
04-20-2015, 09:15 PM
... And is the difference between, say, $4,700 and $5,000 really going to be a big sticking point between the for customer base for this camera? That and the cost of executing this request is something no one outside of Panasonic - and folks with a professional knowledge of electronic engineering - knows.

Which is why I asked how much folks were willing to pay for this. combatentropy posted a link recently to a disassembled GoPro, which revealed its components costs at 43% of its final retail price. (i.e., the retail price was ~ cost x 2.5). Given the tag for DVX200, this ratio is probably somewhere around 3 to 3.5. Now, suppose, the 422 upgrade requires pulling an ASIC board out and slotting an FPGA board in. Then you could be looking at the substantial cost/price hike.

Disclaimer - I am not saying that Jaime's wish has no merit but that it requires a certain assumption of this particular product design. In general, cameras - or cars, for that matter - specs aren't usually in a straight line. If you want to do X, you may have to create Y and Z and self-contained products like DVX200 are usually designed with a proper component fit in mind. This is why you often see price-doubling in a pro-video market when you're making a qualitative step up. One can make more incremental changes too but the manufacturers usually choose not to.


Okay, let me try it this way...

Asking for 4K 4:2:2 on the DVX200 is functionally the equivalent of putting a 300mph speedometer on your VW Beetle. It may make you feel special, but it isn't going to change the car's capability whatsoever... it ain't goin' 300 mph... One can also install a turbo/supercharger into a Beetle but he's not going to turn it into a Porsche Boxter. At some point, the model's innate ecosystem is its own limit.

Jaime Valles
04-20-2015, 09:58 PM
For 1080p this argument may have merit, although -- are you saying everything should be recorded 4:4:4? Because practically nothing is. 4:2:2 is chroma subsampling, it is considered an effective and efficient way to save space without noticeably impacting the visual fidelity of the picture. And, for many folks, 4:2:0 has served to be sufficient as well.

But here's the kicker -- asking for 4:2:2 4K is just silly. As harddrive and I have harped on forever -- you cannot cannot cannot get 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 out of a Bayer sensor that means anything. You can't get higher than 1920x1080 color resolution out of a 4K bayer image sensor. Sure, you could record it as 4:4:4, but that's just silly, it'd be effectively digital up-rezzing. If you want a true 4:4:4, you need three chips, all recording the native frame size. Or, it takes a massively oversampling sensor, such as the RGB Stripe system as employed in the Sony F35, where there are 5,760 pixels on each line of the sensor, used to record 1920 4:4:4.

4:2:0 in 4K will be plenty to record anything this camera, or any 4K single-chip camera, can produce. There is zero point in asking for more.

So 4:2:2 (or 4:4:4) should be considered as possibilities for 1080p recording, but not for 4K. And, even then, 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p is within the realm of possibility when recording 4K source material; downconverting 8-bit 4:2:0 4K down to 1080p will result in 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p. Not entirely convenient to do it that way, but it is possible to do so, even if the onboard recording were only 8-bit 4:2:0.
I'm confused, Barry. If 4:2:2 4K doesn't do anything, why is it that GH4 4K footage recorded on a Shogun in 10-bit 4:2:2 4K looks better and grades better than 8-bit 4:2:0 4K recorded internally?

ugafan
04-20-2015, 10:22 PM
https://vimeo.com/115760414

joe 1008
04-21-2015, 04:14 AM
I'm confused, Barry. If 4:2:2 4K doesn't do anything, why is it that GH4 4K footage recorded on a Shogun in 10-bit 4:2:2 4K looks better and grades better than 8-bit 4:2:0 4K recorded internally?

10 bit over 8 bit has a quality effect even in 4K and so does the higher bitrate of the recorder compared to the quite slow 100Mbps of the internal codec. I'm sure the DVX200 will have an 8 bit 150Mbps 4:2:0 codec, which will be an impovement compared to the GH4 and will deliver excellent image quality. In fact in 4K 8bit 4:2:0 recording bears much less problems than in HD. But it would be extremely useful for fast turnarounds and broadcast shooting to have a HD codec that has at least 8bit 4:2:2 recording. 10 bit of course would be much better.

But there is one point that preoccupies me. The specs we know indicate, that the sensor surface for HD is bigger than for 4K. That smells like line skipping and aliasing as the GH4 has in HD. If so, we would have to go the post production path for the best image anyway and a request for a better HD codec would be somewhat obsolete.

If this is not the case and the DVX200 delivers an excellent HD image, I would be even willing though to pay for a better codec upgrade. Even more if I could use it in post with the same ease like DVCPRO or ProRes.

Bassman2003
04-21-2015, 05:43 AM
One thing I think needs to be stated and is kind of an elephant in the room is that this camera is clearly made for work usage. It is not so much a "cinema" camera but a "video" camera with a larger chip if you know what I mean. To me this means that 4k will NOT be the first choice of recording a lot of the time. My hope is that Panasonic is not drinking the 4k Kool Aid thinking that just because it is there everybody is going to be running around shooting in 4k for their live events to be delivered on the web and DVD. Yes you can get great 1080p from 4k but file size and computer playback factor in a lot for this type of work.

I say all of this to re-state the need for a real 1080p/720p codecs as these are the modes non-cinema stuff is shot on. This and proper color controls in the menu are more important to me than anything 4k.

joe 1008, I am expecting this camera to have a crackin' 1080p image. What we have going against us is the "AG" designation rather than the "AJ". This might prove to keep the camera more towards the consumer side which will make us unhappy.

Ron Evans
04-21-2015, 05:59 AM
....... What we have going against us is the "AG" designation rather than the "AJ". This might prove to keep the camera more towards the consumer side which will make us unhappy.

Yes it is maybe a large sensor version of the HC-X1000 with a few extras ?

Barry_Green
04-21-2015, 08:11 AM
10 bit over 8 bit has a quality effect even in 4K and so does the higher bitrate of the recorder compared to the quite slow 100Mbps of the internal codec. I'm sure the DVX200 will have an 8 bit 150Mbps 4:2:0 codec, which will be an impovement compared to the GH4 and will deliver excellent image quality.
Yep.


But it would be extremely useful for fast turnarounds and broadcast shooting to have a HD codec that has at least 8bit 4:2:2 recording. 10 bit of course would be much better.
Totally agreed.


But there is one point that preoccupies me. The specs we know indicate, that the sensor surface for HD is bigger than for 4K. That smells like line skipping and aliasing as the GH4 has in HD.
I'm not worried about this in the slightest. The DVX200 isn't going to be a GH4. It is, more likely, going to have at least as good technology as the HC-X1000 has. And the HC-X1000 has absolutely brilliant 1080p. It's made from a full scan of the 4K sensor and properly scaled on the fly, with zero line skipping or aliasing.

Given that the GH4 is limited to 1080/30p, and the HC-X1000 does 4K/60p, and the DVX200 is doing 4K/60p, it makes me think that the DVX200 is going to be at least as advanced, if not moreso, than the X1000.

[/quote]If this is not the case and the DVX200 delivers an excellent HD image, I would be even willing though to pay for a better codec upgrade. Even more if I could use it in post with the same ease like DVCPRO or ProRes.[/QUOTE]
There's always the option of using your Shogun/Decklink/Pix-E/7Q+ etc as an external recorder with the DVX200. We have already had it confirmed that it will output 10-bit 4:2:2 from its HDMI port. While I am not sold on the value of that 4:2:2, the 10-bit should give the potential for better recordings than the onboard codec.

As for ease of use, consider that the X1000 records directly into Quicktime files, or .MP4 files. Any editor should be able to drag and drop those files right to the timeline. They won't edit as quickly as an intraframe codec like AVC-I or ProRes, that's true... but again, if you were okay with using an external recorder, you could get that as-is.

Not saying I wouldn't want a 10-bit codec onboard! Don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are options even if it doesn't happen.

Barry_Green
04-21-2015, 08:14 AM
Yes it is maybe a large sensor version of the HC-X1000 with a few extras ?
I wouldn't be surprised if the internal processing was based off the same basic engines as used in the X1000; it is a current 4K model from Panasonic, and it is currently their only professional 4K handycam, so it seems reasonable to expect that the DVX200 would share familial traits with it.

Hopefully though, it will feature a lot of extras. We already know that it has more features (such as V-Log, and variable frame rates, and 1080 up to 120p, and a timecode input port). We don't know what additional features it may have yet, but hopefully it will include the return of the waveform monitor, etc.

joe 1008
04-21-2015, 10:26 AM
I'm not worried about this in the slightest. The DVX200 isn't going to be a GH4. It is, more likely, going to have at least as good technology as the HC-X1000 has. And the HC-X1000 has absolutely brilliant 1080p. It's made from a full scan of the 4K sensor

... ... ... ...

There's always the option of using your Shogun/Decklink/Pix-E/7Q+ etc as an external recorder with the DVX200. We have already had it confirmed that it will output 10-bit 4:2:2 from its HDMI port. While I am not sold on the value of that 4:2:2, the 10-bit should give the potential for better recordings than the onboard codec.

I strongly put my faith in that. Aliasing is a big downwer for me, above everything else.

Concerning an external recorder: in the case of the DVX200 I would absolutely favour an internal solution, as anything added externally to this camera would go against its philosophy - at least if I don't shoot a feature with it. I want to be able to carry this camera through rough terrain and don't worry about external add ons, while producing footage accepted by TV stations for example. The Sony PXW-X70 has such a codec for almost half the price. So the DVX200 should have it, too - and exceed cameras with smaller sensor in every aspect.

ugafan
04-21-2015, 01:08 PM
I want to be able to carry this camera through rough terrain and don't worry about external add ons, while producing footage accepted by TV stations for example.

while the closest i'll ever get to rough terrain is climbing over the mound of crap i've got in the garage, i agree wholeheartedly with this. i don't want to have to pay for external solutions, i want a camera that does it from the start.

Jaime Valles
04-21-2015, 01:56 PM
while the closest i'll ever get to rough terrain is climbing over the mound of crap i've got in the garage, i agree wholeheartedly with this. i don't want to have to pay for external solutions, i want a camera that does it from the start.
+1,000,000

Bassman2003
04-21-2015, 02:26 PM
Sent my requests for Color Matrix & Color Correction menu choices like the PX270, 10bit 4:2:2 codecs for 720p & 1080p along with the hope of the 1080p120 mode recording audio so one could film long stretches of 120fps just like any other video mode.

Lets hope Panasonic wants to adjust to an ever evolving landscape.

Mike Harvey
04-21-2015, 02:41 PM
That and the cost of executing this request is something no one outside of Panasonic - and folks with a professional knowledge of electronic engineering - knows.

Point well taken, and I made sure to acknowledge in my email that I'm aware there might have been some sort of engineering reason why it wasn't included. It's 5-6 months from release, so at this point it may well be too far down the road.

But, if it's possible, it sure would be nice. :)


If Blackmagic can offer 4K ProRes and Raw in a $3K camera, I would hope Panasonic can offer 10bit 4:2:2 H.264 in a $5000 camera. I realize it's more compressed but come on. In fact they should be offering ProRes as an option, at least for 1080p.

As DLD said, they're offering to completely different feature sets. The lens on the DVX200, if it were one of their X lenses, would be ~14-183mm. My 12-35mm and 35-100mm X lenses combined would cost about $2,700 today. The DVX's lens is nearly twice as long, while only losing 1.2 stops of light at the far end. And it has a servo zoom and internal ND filters. It also uses cheaper batteries. And Cfast 2.0 cards are twice as expensive while holding far fewer minutes of raw or ProRos than the DVX200 will of it's MP4 or AVCHD footage.

Not knocking the Ursa mini... the specs vs price make it look like a really attractive camera (especially if you already have a bunch of EF glass... I think BMD is going to sell a ton of them). But it's like comaparing a Ford truck to a Jeep... it's not quite apples to apples.

combatentropy
04-21-2015, 06:02 PM
There are people in this forum who will not let you even compare Braeburns to Granny Smiths.

Come on. What roxics means is that the URSA Mini, in offering 4K ProRes in a $3,000 camera, shows that 4K ProRes cannot cost that much in and of itself, because with just $3,000 Blackmagic includes not only 4K ProRes but also RAW, a 5" 1080p screen, dual phantom XLRs, a 4K APS-C sensor --- on and on. And it makes some amount of profit on top of all that.

You can call out the differences between this camera and that camera, to lead to the conclusion that it might be thousands of dollars for feature X. Or you can kick dust up in the air in a storm in uncertainty and doubt, to lead to the conclusion that, you know, we just have no clue how much feature X might cost. But I don't know why you do! Are you in the service of preventing broken hearts? I mean, seriously, what is your motivation for poo-pooing feature requests? I mean, what bad thing are you anticipating if someone asks for something that they might not get?

frantick
04-22-2015, 06:54 AM
Do we know if the 10-bit external output is real or the pseudo 10-bit that they added to the AF100a? (Not that I've heard good or bad about it.)

-cp

joe 1008
04-23-2015, 03:51 AM
Do we know if the 10-bit external output is real or the pseudo 10-bit that they added to the AF100a? (Not that I've heard good or bad about it.)

How's the 10bit output of the GH4? The dvx200's one will certainly not be worse.

Jaime Valles
04-26-2015, 09:33 AM
I'm still confused by people here saying that recording 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 internally won't provide better results than 4K 8-bit 4:2:0. What about this image?
http://s10.postimg.org/4dyztnuh5/vlcsnap_2015_04_18_01h38m52s199.png (http://postimage.org/)

Taken from this video:
https://vimeo.com/114978513

To me, this shows a clear advantage to recording in 4K 10-bit 4:2:2, so why not ask for it as part of the camera's recording options?

DLD
04-26-2015, 12:47 PM
I'm still confused by people here saying that recording 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 internally won't provide better results than 4K 8-bit 4:2:0... A "clean" HDMI out for 422 - or for 444 via HDMI 2.0a with something like C300 MK II - keeps a lot of the data from the sensor that the internal recording will simply discard during the compression process.

I think what Barry and harddrive have been saying is that a typical 8.3/8.8 MPX Bayer mask sensor used for/on 4K doesn't have the full 422 data to begin with. In that math equation, to go native 422 4K, you'd need 16.6/17.2 MPX and, to go 444, you'd need 24.9/26.4 (a la F35 for 2K).

PS. And, if this is not what Barry and harddrive think ... sowwwwwweeeee...

philiplipetz
04-26-2015, 01:30 PM
Still 4:2:2 HD on this cam would be perfect.

Ron Evans
04-26-2015, 01:42 PM
Just for comparison. The Sony EA50 HD APS-C camera has 13.6Mpixels for 16/9 video or stills. Plenty for upgrade to 4K !!! Just needs the electronics and plenty of room for a fan !!! Could be a lower cost variant to the FS7 for Sony.

Jaime Valles
04-26-2015, 02:58 PM
I think what Barry and harddrive have been saying is that a typical 8.3/8.8 MPX Bayer mask sensor used for/on 4K doesn't have the full 422 data to begin with. In that math equation, to go native 422 4K, you'd need 16.6/17.2 MPX and, to go 444, you'd need 24.9/26.4 (a la F35 for 2K).
Oh! I think I see what you're saying. If the DVX200 sensor doesn't have as many pixels as the GH4 sensor, the 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 mode won't be useful, unlike that of the GH4. Is that right? I was thinking the DVX200 sensor would be just as pixel dense as the GH4.

DLD
04-26-2015, 07:30 PM
Oh! I think I see what you're saying. If the DVX200 sensor doesn't have as many pixels as the GH4 sensor, the 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 mode won't be useful, unlike that of the GH4. Is that right? I was thinking the DVX200 sensor would be just as pixel dense as the GH4. It may have as many pixels as GH4 (or it may not, right?) but it's still likely to use the same center 2.3 crop for 4K. So, for practical intent, 4:2:0 will do the trick.

Now, mind you, the key is not only in the sensor itself but in the particular codec and the processing power of each camera, which discard different amounts of data at different points in their processing paths. Toss the data out right away and the end product won't be very good. Perform the compression at the final output stage and the camera can have a sterling image at as low as ~ 25 Mbps (which is the Netflix 4K streaming bit rate). And the catch is that no one really knows what the heck is inside the camera aside of its engineers. So, quite conceivably, a 40 Mbps from Model A can be superior to 100 Mbps from Model B. The only way to do a performance comparison is to do a ... performance comparison.

philiplipetz
04-26-2015, 08:15 PM
It is a "native 4k resolution" sensor.

Thomas Smet
04-27-2015, 08:03 AM
I'm still confused by people here saying that recording 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 internally won't provide better results than 4K 8-bit 4:2:0. What about this image?
http://s10.postimg.org/4dyztnuh5/vlcsnap_2015_04_18_01h38m52s199.png (http://postimage.org/)

Taken from this video:
https://vimeo.com/114978513

To me, this shows a clear advantage to recording in 4K 10-bit 4:2:2, so why not ask for it as part of the camera's recording options?

That isn't comparing apples to apples. H264 internal recording has its own banding issues which is what you are seeing most of here. Plus 4:2:0 untreated will look like what one would expect 4:2:0 to look like. It is after all tossing out every other color sample. Chroma up-sampling however helps to add those missing pixels back in.

With a bayer sensor every single pixel is interpolated. So red pixel #2 is created from an average of red pixel #1 and red pixel #3. Yes the math is a bit more complicated but my point is that math is used to create that missing color pixel. When recorded as 4:2:0 the encoder tosses out red pixel #2. By using chroma up-sampling (AE, Premiere, 5DtoRGB) you once again create red pixel #2 by averaging red pixel #1 and red pixel #3. So you really fill back in that missing color sample with a value very close to the original value. Its not a perfect science of course since there are things like rounding error and bayer sensors are a bit more elegant and complex in how they calculate values but it gets you like 80% there to something that is almost visually impossible to tell apart. Especially if you shoot softer details (adapted lenses, detail turned down, shooting RAW, ect.). What it gives you for sure is a complete elimination to the jagged edges from 4:2:0.

4:2:0 on its own is not a bad thing at all. It is all the other junk going on with H264 compression that hurts the image. This is why I would take a 10 bit ProRes external recording over an internal 10 bit H264 encoding any day.

Mike Harvey
04-27-2015, 08:34 AM
4:2:0 on its own is not a bad thing at all. It is all the other junk going on with H264 compression that hurts the image. This is why I would take a 10 bit ProRes external recording over an internal 10 bit H264 encoding any day.

There is also a much more practical issue that would need to be addressed... can a SDXC or microP2 card even handle 10bit 4k 4:2:2? AVC-Ultra 4k is 400mbs. Even if they got a more compressed long-gop codec to use, what would the data rate on it be? The current 4k codec is 100mbs. Could they manage to get a 10bit and/or 4:2:2 flavor at 200mb/s? And if so, just how much processing power would it require, and could they stick it in a camera the size of the DVX200 without seriously increasing the cost or requiring much more expensive media? Because creating a jack of all trade's camera like this at this price point that requires me to buy Cfast 2.0 cards or SSD's sort of defeats the purpose.

Camera Expert
04-27-2015, 08:58 AM
SD cards are very fast now such as the Lexar 2000x series (260MB/s write speed). Even slower cards such as the Lexar 1000x and the Sandisk 95MB/s cards can handle decent bit rates.

Mike Harvey
04-27-2015, 09:17 AM
I have the Sandisk 95mb/s for my GH4, and you're right, they do handle 200mb/s like a champ. But will they handle more than that? Or, a better question... is Panasonic willing to guarantee it? As it stands, the Sandisk 95mb/s cards I have are technically not supported, as they aren't U-3 cards. Would Panasonic be willing to guarantee non-microP2 cards for anything faster than than 200mb/s at this point in time?

Camera Expert
04-27-2015, 09:59 AM
Just pointing out that we do have cards that can handle pretty high bit rates but it's true that I'll be up to Panasonic. Lexar and Sandisk already have SD cards that have faster write speeds than a Micro P2 card.

250MB/s Write speed.
http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/sd/extremepro-sdxc-sdhc-uhs-ii/?capacity=64GB

260MB/s Write speed.
http://www.lexar.com/pro-2000x-sd?category=5286

By the time, the DVX200 is out, we might see even faster SD cards.

Jaime Valles
04-27-2015, 11:18 AM
That isn't comparing apples to apples. H264 internal recording has its own banding issues which is what you are seeing most of here.
I see. It's H.264 compression that's the problem in that example, not 8-bit 4:2:0? So the solution for less banding in internally recorded footage is a higher bitrate (say 200Mbps in 4K)?

BillinSC
04-27-2015, 02:12 PM
I watched a video over on Vimeo introducing the DVX200. The rep from Panasonic mentioned the camera supported AVC intra and 4K 4-4-4. Of course we have not actually seen the camera yet, but one can hope. That would be huge. It makes me feel so puny with only AVC-100 with my obsolete HPX-250.

philiplipetz
04-27-2015, 02:19 PM
I watched a video over on Vimeo introducing the DVX200. The rep from Panasonic mentioned the camera supported AVC intra and 4K 4-4-4. Of course we have not actually seen the camera yet, but one can hope. That would be huge. It makes me feel so puny with only AVC-100 with my obsolete HPX-250.

discussed before. The rep confused the Varicam with the DVX200. No specs like this on this cam.

Thomas Smet
04-27-2015, 02:22 PM
I see. It's H.264 compression that's the problem in that example, not 8-bit 4:2:0? So the solution for less banding in internally recorded footage is a higher bitrate (say 200Mbps in 4K)?

It isn't really just a bitrate issue either. More to do with the nature of H264 encoding. Moving to intra-frame H264 might help. Like the 200mbit mode on the GH4 but 4k would need a much higher bitrate than 200mbps.

4:2:0 can cause a slightly increase in color banding on its own but it is very minor and you would have to push the color way more than 50% in order to see it. Within any normal levels of color correction you will never see it. The example from that video was an unrealistic extreme case to help market the Shogun.