Panasonic 4K Consumer Camera

We are really getting in to the era of ultra high definition so I'm hopeful the next MFT camera is 2,5 or 4k.

I mean, you can get an 4K processor in their taking no space and costing no money really.
Look at Gopro that has 4k and 15fps, soo close.
 
I have no idea. I dont think it has one. It's more like a plastic shell with a lens just to show off a 4K camera that they may make. If Panasonic gets enough buzz then maybe they will go ahead and produce something. That's my opinion only.
 
That's really interesting. I wonder what the deal is with the sensor... It looks like they're on the right track making 4K accessible but I wonder when it is going to hit and I wonder if they have any plans for a 4K cinema camera. Cool stuff.
 
I saw a Toshiba 4K monitor that was paired up with a RED 4K Cinema box ... the image
was jaw-dropping.

This is about the time in the game that Panasonic would drop something in the 4K space.
I would be quite surprised if it would be in the SDHC format though .. We've got some
4K cameras and they blow out some serious datarates .. so I would expect something in
the SSD space.

Even with AVC Ultra, I think the 4K was near 500mb/s .. so that will blow out SD.

jeff
 
Make the AF4k MFT and get someone in Panny that can design a decent body design. 12+ stops and costs $15,000-16,000. Then Panny will reign again.
 
jmarkham said:
I saw a Toshiba 4K monitor that was paired up with a RED 4K Cinema box ... the image
was jaw-dropping.

This is about the time in the game that Panasonic would drop something in the 4K space.
I would be quite surprised if it would be in the SDHC format though .. We've got some
4K cameras and they blow out some serious datarates .. so I would expect something in
the SSD space.

Even with AVC Ultra, I think the 4K was near 500mb/s .. so that will blow out SD.

jeff
Click to expand...

I went to the Red party last year at NAB and they had several 4K monitors showing Red footage. Wow! More impressive than 3D as far as tech goes. AVC Ultra was designed for 4K so I would think we will see a P2 format for internal capture.
 
Erik Naso said:
I went to the Red party last year at NAB and they had several 4K monitors showing Red footage. Wow! More impressive than 3D as far as tech goes. AVC Ultra was designed for 4K so I would think we will see a P2 format for internal capture.
Click to expand...

I remember the little video that Panny had pumping Ultra last year at NAB, and yes - I think you're right that it was via P2. Last year was talk. This year hopefully they'll deliver with something real.
 
dustylense said:
Make the AF4k MFT and get someone in Panny that can design a decent body design. 12+ stops and costs $15,000-16,000. Then Panny will reign again.
Click to expand...

That would be the same price-point as the Scarlet with the Dragon sensor ( rumored price-point ).

If Panasonic does come out with a 4k product, I would much prefer it to be at the S35 sensor size rather
than the MFT sensor size.

Granted, it's not *that* big of a difference. But, when you're mixing and matching cameras, having to account
for varying cropping factors is an undesired complication.

jeff
 
Can you/could you retain a M43 lens mount design with an s35 sensor? Or would it require a change in mounts to utilize s35 sensor?

Because if you had an S35 sensor with M43 mount, it would crop a little bit of the S35 sensor... yes? But wouldn't it still give the benefits of the larger sensor (better low light) and even with the crop, reduce the crop factor greatly from the AF100? If this was the case, would 4K still be possible or would it be closer to 3K? Not that it matters much to me, I don't need 4K resolution...

Perhaps the AF100 could be an S35 internal sensor but with a slight bit of a crop factor, retain M43 mount?

I'd like to see in an AF200:

* M43 mount
* 3K resolution. Possible 4K (if possible while retaining M43 mount?)
* S35 sensor for lots of lowlight, cropped to around 3K, less of a crop factor (perhaps 1.3-1.5x VS ~2x af100 crop factor).
* High FPS (at least 120+ constant, 240+ burst to match GoPro 3 / FS700)
* Full 1080P LCD screen, closer to 5" (like many smartphone displays) - for pixel accurate focus, easier viewing - nix need for external monitor
* More Codecs (AVC-Intra, record straight to ProRes, possible RAW?) - nix need for external recorder
* Better Color Space (at least 4:2:2)
* 2 Slot redundant recording for auto backup
* More stops of DR, to match or surpass Black Magic Camera
* Better highlight handling and other sensor issues
* Sub 5K price point
 
Last edited:
filmguy123 said:
Can you/could you retain a M43 lens mount design with an s35 sensor? Or would it require a change in mounts to utilize s35 sensor?

Because if you had an S35 sensor with M43 mount, it would crop a little bit of the S35 sensor... yes? But wouldn't it still give the benefits of the larger sensor (better low light) and even with the crop, reduce the crop factor greatly from the AF100? If this was the case, would 4K still be possible or would it be closer to 3K? Not that it matters much to me, I don't need 4K resolution...

Perhaps the AF100 could be an S35 internal sensor but with a slight bit of a crop factor, retain M43 mount?

I'd like to see in an AF200:

* M43 mount
* 3K resolution. Possible 4K (if possible while retaining M43 mount?)
* S35 sensor for lots of lowlight, cropped to around 3K, less of a crop factor (perhaps 1.3-1.5x VS ~2x af100 crop factor).
* High FPS (at least 120+ constant, 240+ burst to match GoPro 3 / FS700)
* Full 1080P LCD screen, closer to 5" (like many smartphone displays) - for pixel accurate focus, easier viewing - nix need for external monitor
* More Codecs (AVC-Intra, record straight to ProRes, possible RAW?) - nix need for external recorder
* Better Color Space (at least 4:2:2)
* 2 Slot redundant recording for auto backup
* More stops of DR, to match or surpass Black Magic Camera
* Better highlight handling and other sensor issues
* Sub 5K price point
Click to expand...

...and then...you wake up. ;)
 
I dont need 4K for the work I do however with the trend of the manufactures developing 4K monitors and showing them off at CES this year I think it's going to be tough for them to keep developing HD cameras. This is a business and if consumers get all excited about 4K then they will make it and the pro gear will be 4K as well. The Sony F3 is one of my favorite for IQ. I dont like the ergonomics of it. Sony left the F3 alone and didn't update it. They jumped right into new 4K cameras. A 4K MFT sensor would be amazing. So many lenses can be used with adapters the choices are endless. But I digress. I would be happy with a 4:2:2 internal recording and updated sensor......and then...I woke up.
 
To be honest, much of the negativily that surrounds the AF100 is entirely our fault - if we were a few guys meeting monthy, smoking cigars and chatting about our cameras in seclusion, no one outside the "users" would pay attention to any of the criticism. Unfortunately, it's out there every day in a public forum and, as I've often said before, other people read these forums. All of us want an improved AF-whatever, but that has been construed as bashing... it isn't.

Except for the few who seem to have personal agendas, possibly originated by competing marketing departments, most here are merely trying to let Panasonic Broadcast know what we want in an imprioved model. The AF100 is a very good camera, way better than what was available a mere 2 years ago. 4K is the new Holy Grail I guess, people now believe that "it's like looking out a picture window" is good image-making - but I'm still back there when making good films was the goal.
 
Adamsenoj said:
...and then...you wake up. ;)
Click to expand...

Ha which part? I thought those were all terribly realistic! Actually, most things there cost no more than one AF100 was made (processors have improved to easily to process 4K/high FPS/higher bandwidth codecs/more color space); screen technology has improved substantial (retina display everything), really the only thing that costs more out of that whole list is the S35 sensor with better DR. The rest of it is natural progression with tech.
 
Mac said:
To be honest, much of the negativily that surrounds the AF100 is entirely our fault - All of us want an improved AF-whatever, but that has been construed as bashing... it isn't.

The AF100 is a very good camera, way better than what was available a mere 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

So true. Yes, there are a number of things I want, and I do have high expectations for my next camera (largely because tech is progressing so quickly), but my AF100 is great. And all the criticisms I hear, while technically valid, seem to be a little overblown. I've had people say "I hear it has a crop factor and it's impossible to get wide" I flip the LCD screen around and show them the frame with Olympus 12mm (which isn't even THAT wide) and they're like "...oh... yeah... OK, that's pretty good." Another person watched a video I made out in bright sunlight and asked how I handled the AF100's strong yellow highlights. I was kind of confused... cause I didn't do anything. I just shot and exposed for my subject and anything that came up was minimal. People say they heard that the 5Ds are better in lowlight. Yes, they definitely are. But, I show them my Nokton 25mm f/0.95 with 1600 ISO (heck, even 400) and they pipe down real quick... "that's still really good"... yup, it is.

Being able to shoot light and compact is a HUGE plus of the AF100. It's one of the best live event/documentary cameras I could hope to own since it's got all the XLRs, NDs, proper tools built in. Long recording times, small lenses, and I can get long focal lengths for way cheaper... which actually is more beneficial most of the time than being able to get CRAZY fish-eye wide. I can rent a 7mm (14mm equiv) if I really need it, but 90% of the time my 12mm (24mm equiv) is as wide of a look as I want anyway. But being able to have my retro nikkor f/2.0 85mm (170mm f/2.0 equiv)) which I got for dirt cheap as a great telephoto, and is VERY light and small, is hard to beat for a lot of live event/doc work. I can easily fit my whole kit into an internationally sized carry-on bag. I can shoot slow-motion at weird in between speeds which give great, subtle dream like appearance to clips (love 36/44fps), I don't have to sync audio later or carry add in mixers or be limited in audio gear choices, etc.
 
My big 4K question (as opposed to my million dollar question) is: to what purpose?

For cropping/reframing in post?

As acquisition, not delivery?

If delivery, of what product (other than movies, though aren't they typically 2K?), and how?

Certainly not for broadcast for the foreseeable future, and I'm not sure corporate would move on it this early, other than large displays, perhaps?

Just curious...
 
I think 4K is being touted as the end-all fior the "fix it in post" crowd. Personally, I like the image that comes out of the camera to be the one that is eventually seen... Sure, there may be some minor scene-matching or white balance fixes (especially shooting documentaries, as I do) but as for framing and overall color balance, I think that's the job of the cinematographer, not the editor - or worse, the producer looking over the editor's shoulder...

As filmguy says above, if you know what you're doing with this camera, you hardly ever encounter the "problems" that are so often cited... I've had some highlight clipping, but it's not nearly as bad as it was with the HPX500 or the HVX. It's really the dynamic range that is important. Increase the dynamic range and you will never need 4K - unless maybe you're business is stock footage and you want a future-proof archive, that I can understand.. But for actual documentary or narrative filmmaking it's overkill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top