The future of HVX200

Nice post Jan. I can say categorically the HPX is putting more $ in my pocket through demand and cost ratio. I am extremely happy with the decisions I have made.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I am here and have been doing this for the last 4 years. This is where many of the ideas came from for the DVX100B, and the HVX200 some other new cameras that will be coming. You can have a read on one of the other areas here where the gang has been depositing ideas for the new cameras. Having a direct relationship with the customer is a positive thing when designing a camera. Lots of opportunity for feedback. You take what you can implement for the price point and deliver.

Where I think the direct sales situation falls short is that when you have 40,000 cameras out the door in one year, as an example, how does a team of 30 handle that customer support? Now extend that question to a world wide basis with different languages and cultures. No, I think there is a need for that channel of distribution that can help when you can't get through to the guy at the manufacturer that could help.

The sad part is that some of the vendors only look at their part of the distribution as a warehousing facility, but others take on more of a support role for their customers. I think I could point to examples right here on this board, like the guys from Spec-Comm, or Abel CineTech or EVS or Full Compass. They have knowledge that they are willing to share with their customers and I think this is a win-win scenario, the support team just got larger. See, the sale doesn't end when you hand over your money, it goes on long after, through the buyer's remorse stage, to the learning curve stage and then through your success stage. Yes, there are a number of customers that started small and have made it through all of this and into Sundance with the help of their local vendor and Panasonic. And we have written about them. It's not how small your team of support is, it is how large. This is the real beauty of the relationships that can be had with that distribution channel in-between. And you still have the manufacturer there as well.

All the best,

Jan
Click to expand...



Jan,
Thanks for your post. I do like Panasonic cameras. My last project was shot on a Varicam. Obviously we would LOVE Panasonic to build this camera at a competing price with the Sony HDCAM EX. What codec would you suggest be used for a 2K camera? Generally Panasonic has used better codecs then Sony with smaller resolution sensors. This is the Filmmaker/Videographer's GREAT debate/tradeoff. Should I use a better codec or higher resolution image sensor? What we want is both.

Being that I have worked in a big corporation setting I wonder the type of politics that you would encounter requesting the higher end chips/resolution for this type of budget based camera. (Sony's chip in the EX seems good on paper. On the other hand Barry is right CMOS has it's challenges. However, Panasonic needs an upgrade or new camera to continue to compete in my opinion. I've got my eye on the new EX because it's closer to what I want than the HVX200. But that can all change right?)

The great thing about small companies like RED is that they don't have big corporation politics. They have different ones. On the other hand, as you already stated, there is power in the large corporation infrastructure. I guess I question whether or not we would get what we really want or would we still have to compromise? As I previously stated, a large 2K image sensor, interchangeable lens mount, critical focus LCD, 1-60 progressive frame rates, tapeless media, and a solid codec for FX is the priority.

I would like to add that YOU (JAN) have done a great job in the past. It's not easy doing what you have already done for this community. Thank you :love4:
 
Last edited:
Jan_Crittenden said:
This is the real beauty of the relationships that can be had with that distribution channel in-between. And you still have the manufacturer there as well. Jan
Click to expand...

I can attest that my dealer, SNADER, and Panasonic have been there for me in ways not many other companies have. Not once have any of my concerns been ignored and in fact, Panasonic employees have usually contacted me later as a follow-up, Jan included.
I always consider my investment in the product should make me a partner in the company. Panisonic gets this!
 
Barry_Green said:
So, Jan, glad to see you reading this thread! When can we get started on building the Green One? :P
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Everyone seems to like Panasonics customer service. Jan is this a possibility for Panasonic to build this coming year within a $5,000-$8,000 price range? What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I have another feature request. I would like to see a stereo mic built into the camera. It could be used in post production as a field recorder for background sounds. To clarify I would like two mic's built in. They could record together in mono or a stereo track.

Audio Guru's: What type of mic's would be versatile enough for this and other application?

A Graphic EQ and other audio meters should be accessible in the menu options of the camera. I would like each function to be assignable separately to individual audio channels.
 
Jan, this post is for you...

Pleaase do include avc-intra on the upcoming HVX replacement. Nowadays codec usage can be selected by the user with the portable HD-SDI recorders, so why not include, out of the box, one of the best, panasonic proprietary ones?

a 1/2 3ccd avc intra 100 fixed lens handheld camera with 1440x1080 (I don't even ask for full 1920x1080p ccd's! Pixel shift the 1440x1080 ccd's- I believe this should give us more than enough resolution for feature production!)

With the 1/2 ccd's you wouldn't be competing directly with your high end cameras. And we would still be talking about a fixed lens handheld camera, which in itself is not competing with your other offerings...

Price point could be 9500 USD. Me and many others would not mind purchasing a camera with this performance in this price range.

Also keep it P2. And allow AVC-HD recording for proxies or lower end/higher recording times in an SDHC card!
 
Barry,
What do you think of using AVC-HD? We should not negotiate on the interchangeable lens mount. This is an absolute must for filmmakers. Sony's new HDV cameras have interchangeable lens mounts. So does other lower priced cameras such as JVC, and Canon. And I want atleast 1920X1080 with 2K pixel shift. I would rather have a 2.5K sensor. Sony HDCAM EX is 1920X1080. I don't see why it's not feasible.

How do we change the name of this thread. I think it should be called "The Green One Progressive 2K camera."
 
Last edited:
AVC-HD is a good replacement for HDV and can be as good as XDCAM-EX. But it's still long-GOP 4:2:0. If we're designing the ultimate-cam, I don't see why you'd want to make either of those compromises. AVC-HD is better than MPEG-2, yes, but it's still low-bandwidth long-GOP. If someone finds HDV or XD-HD acceptable, they'd probably be fine with AVC-HD. But Id rather have an intraframe codec; if we could talk Panasonic into producing the "Green One" I'd vote for AVC-Intra for the recording codec.
 
I just edited my post while you were typing. I meant AVC-Intra not AVC-HD. I don't want long-GOP. I'll go back and change it so others don't get confused.
 
Barry_Green said:
Done exactly what? Give everyone everything, plus more? No they certainly haven't. They took away video recording entirely, for one thing. The list of things that video cameras do, that Red doesn't do, would be a mile long. Red emulates what a film camera does, not what a video camera does. A totally different market.

Red has moved all the "video" functionality out of the camera and onto your desktop computer. So you can accomplish many of the same tasks, but not quite the same, and not the same workflow. It's more like a film workflow. Which is great for filmmakers, but I doubt you're going to see Red Ones being used to shoot the Super Bowl or stuff like that.

Every product is built to hit a certain price tag, and every product will make compromises along the way (or you'll be the one making the compromise with your wallet, but either way there will be a compromise). That's how things work.

If you like the idea of a camera front end that connects to a computer back end, look into the SI-2K and also the Sumix; the Sumix is a 1920x1080 2/3" system for $2500. Of course there's no menu settings, no recording format, no lens, no autofocus, no gamma or picture controls, no anything really; just a camera head. But it's a variable-frame-rate uncompressed high-def 2/3" system for $2500. For that price tag, I bet many people would be willing to compromise on their workflow. For those who won't compromise their workflow, they can instead compromise their wallet and get a full-featured camera that does what they need. But there's always going to be a tradeoff somewhere.


Please do. That's how the DVX100 came about, and that's how the Red One came about.


Some of us would (I am, for example) but it's a totally inappropriate tool for many tasks. I mean, probably the #1 way to make money with a camcorder is to shoot weddings and events. A Red would be perhaps the single least suitable tool for doing that job.


Don't forget the XHA1 and HV20 as well; they're breakthroughs at their price points. But yes, competition is pushing the manufacturers to "up their game" which results in better selections for us.


I'm lookin' at it... Thanks for the vote of confidence!


Hence why Red has announced plans to someday produce the "Pocket Red".


Considering an HVX is 5K, why would you set the bar at 10k? There's lots and lots and lots that could be added for an additional $5,000! You could have TWO HVXs for that $10k price tag you're talking about...


No, not correct. You're mixing technologies; one is a single-chip system (the Red) and the other is a three-chip system. So while the Red One sensor has 12 million pixels total, it's spread across the three primary colors. So the Red has 3 million red pixels, three million blue pixels, and six million green pixels. By total pixel count the EX1 has about 2 million red, 2 million blue, and 2 million green. So if you want to count total pixels the EX1 is about 6 megapixels, versus the Red's 12 million. Yet one claims 4K resolution and the other is 1080P. (see why it's tricky to mix metaphors?)

There are lots of good ingredients out there. If I was building the "perfect" camera I sure as heck wouldn't start with a rolling-shutter CMOS, I'd aim for a 2.5K-res S35-sized CCD. To hell with rolling-shutter CMOS, let's do this thing right. A single-chip CCD using a Beyer pattern (2.5k, so by the time it's de-bayered it's a full 2K res) or a single-chip Foveon-style sensor would let us use film lenses, instead of 3 chips which prevents that option. If Foveon could work, that'd be awesome because we'd have 4:4:4 in a single-chip system.

Build it with the P&S Technik interchangeable lens mount system so you can use cheap Nikons or premium PL-mount Zeiss Ultra Primes, or a B4 ENG lens, whatever -- your choice with the quick twist of the mount. It should have on-body support for autoexposure and autofocus, so if you connect an autofocus SLR lens it can use it, if you connect an ENG lens it can use the auto-iris capability, etc. And CAC!

Provide the option to record processed ready-to-air video to data files (like HVX/EX1) so you can use it to make a living shooting video and hand that footage right to the client, and also have the option to record the raw sensor data (like Sumix/Red do) for your extensive grading and high-quality film work. It should record to cheap commodity media like CompactFlash or SD cards. Have standard interfaces like genlock and timecode in/out and HDMI (unless the price tag can support HD-SDI) and a cheap BNC composite feed so jib & steadicam operators can integrate it into existing workflows. Pure progressive recording (death to interlace once and for all!) and variable frame rates from 1 to 120. It should be able to record standard frame sizes such as SD 16:9, 720p, 1080p and full raw 2K. (4K's nice but I'd rather have 4x larger pixels for 2 stops better sensitivity and dynamic range, and we're also tryin' to keep the price down). An LCD as good as the EX1's, with colored peaking and pixel-to-pixel on-board (and both at the same time, fer cryin' out loud!) User swappable scene files. Uncompressed audio in 4 channels with 4 proper XLRs like the HPX500 has. Intraframe encoding so no goofy MPEG bullcrap -- the video should be recorded in 10-bit 4:2:2 intraframe at an adequate bandwidth, using an advanced codec like wavelet or AVC. And it should record to computer-editable formats -- MXF, AVI and Quicktime, your choice. And the codec it records to should be a freely distributable, nonproprietary system. No proprietary codec, no stupid "it works only on a Mac but not on Windows" idiocy, and no "you gotta buy it" proprietary solution. It should be a standard codec that, when someone clicks the file in their Quicktime or Windows Media Player application, if the codec hasn't been installed yet, the OS knows how to go online, find and download the freely distributable playback codec. So no client will ever be left asking "what am I supposed to do with these files?"

Oh, while we're at it, gigabit ethernet data streaming of the raw signal (or very mildly compressed, if it needs to be, to fit on a gigabit pipe). Two card slots for hot-swapping, and a recording buffer of maybe a minute of RAM in-camera so that the recording mechanism can work with slower lower-cost memory (i.e., if the cards can only sustain 20 megaBytes/sec write speed but you're shooting 30 megaBytes/sec data rate, the system can buffer up in RAM and when you stop recording it automatically flushes the buffer out. So it writes as fast as possible, and if you're running at 20mB/s data rate the memory card can keep up, but if you're running at 30mB/s then it'll write out 20mB/s as fast as it can, and buffer up the rest until you cut recording, at which point it'll continue churning the data out until it's completely finished. And also implement write verification so you can have 100% confidence that your recorded data is "good."

In fact, maybe it should have RAM slots, like in a desktop computer, so you can add as much RAM as you want. If you don't like the ram buffering concept you may want to just buy premium high-cost high-speed CompactFlash for recording the full 30mB/sec data rate. But if you're working as a stringer for the news station, you might want to buy some cheap 4GB CompactFlash cards, and then you'd need the buffering feature. So you'd opt for the choice to plug some computer RAM in those slots, but other users who didn't need that feature could leave the slots empty, etc. In this way the user can tailor the price tag and the camera to their particular needs.

For that matter, give us full proper menu settings (black gamma, master gamma, 12-pole color matrix) as well as simple settings. Let the user choose "simple" or "advanced" menu operations, depending on their level of experience and expertise.

And let's rock this one: base it on Linux, with published open-source source code so end users can change/modify and improve the software, adding features. Let the community develop it to even greater potential. And, taking a page from Red, make it modular so that it's user upgradeable if new sensors or new faster DSP chips come out, etc.

This would be one camera that can truly "do it all". An S35-sized sensor for 35mm DOF, 2K res gives you an ISO of probably around 1,000 for incredible low light (and of course we want negative gain to clean up the noise performance), interchangeable lenses let you go as professional or as "ghetto" as you want, it's a full proper "video" camera for making a living with, and it's a raw digital "film replacement" camera for making your masterpiece.
Click to expand...

I hope thats the pocket red......
 
SPZ said:
Jan, this post is for you...

Pleaase do include avc-intra on the upcoming HVX replacement. Nowadays codec usage can be selected by the user with the portable HD-SDI recorders, so why not include, out of the box, one of the best, panasonic proprietary ones?

a 1/2 3ccd avc intra 100 fixed lens handheld camera with 1440x1080 (I don't even ask for full 1920x1080p ccd's! Pixel shift the 1440x1080 ccd's- I believe this should give us more than enough resolution for feature production!)

With the 1/2 ccd's you wouldn't be competing directly with your high end cameras. And we would still be talking about a fixed lens handheld camera, which in itself is not competing with your other offerings...

Price point could be 9500 USD. Me and many others would not mind purchasing a camera with this performance in this price range.

Also keep it P2. And allow AVC-HD recording for proxies or lower end/higher recording times in an SDHC card!
Click to expand...

That's a very sweet spec point...................... and a real challenge for Pani to meet (given their current lineup). Hope they do something like this myself.

Regards
JohnG
 
I don't see why Panasonic couldn't build this camera. I also don't see why it can't be at 2K. If it was 1920X1080 with pixel shifting to 2K that would be better. Why don't more people push for a interchangeable lens mount?
 
Last edited:
Why don't more people push for a interchangeable lens mount?
Click to expand...
... because, like I keep saying, there's a compromise in everything. Interchangeable lenses sound great, until you get into it and realize that there's a whole buttload of nonsense you have to deal with now -- from breathing, to backfocus issues, to losing autofocus and image stabilization... and if you want to overcome the breathing, you have to spend a fortune.

A built-in lens is soooooo much simpler and easier to design, and frankly it performs better than comparable interchangeable-lens systems because the lens is mated specifically to the imaging system in the camera.

So when you go interchangeable, you introduce a lot more hassle simultaneously with introducing more opportunity. Interchangeable lenses on a 3-chip camera are also a lot more complex to design, and a lot more limited in choice/availability, because you can't use film lenses; you'd have to use specially-designed video lenses that accomodate for the light-splitting prism that sends the light to the three chips.

The "Green One" is designed to get around that by using a single-sensor Beyer design -- which in and of itself is yet another compromise, but I figure the lower cost and shallower DOF and lens interchangeability would be worth the compromises that Beyer brings.
 
Barry,
Thank you for the explanation. I now understand why you suggest using a single-sensor Beyer design in this price range.
 
Barry,
Does the single-sensor guess (systematically) the needed colors of the image? I just found good article on this.

http://www.cineform.com/technology/CineForm_RAW.htm


I wonder what the cost difference would be between this sensor and CMOS technology? Do you think the difference in costs of the sensor is why RED (and now Sony) chose CMOS? (If anyone knows the difference in cost it would be helpful.)
 
I'm all for the next HVX variant having a fixed lens, as long as the focal range is at least 16x. 10x is less than adequate, to put it mildly. Give it 1/2 inch sensor(s), and a better viewfinder/LCD and I'd be a happy camper. The thought of s Fovenon sensor finding it's way into a video camera makes me think very happy thoughts.

Regardless, I'm excited to see what the next round of cameras will be specced with. The competitive bar has been raised with the new Sony having a 1/2 inch sensor. Combine that with AVC and some of the other new possibilities and the future could be bright indeed for cameras in the 5-10K range ...

That is, unless Panasonic continues to treat Apple users as red headed step-children... ;-)
 
der4 said:
Barry,
Thank you for the explanation. I now understand why you suggest using a single-sensor Beyer design in this price range.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the design compromises involved, but frankly I think it's the best choice for anyone wanting to use film lenses. Which is us. We just need to make sure that there's enough oversized resolution so that the de-mosaic'd image has enough resulting resolution. 3 megapixels ought to do about right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top