5600K Preset Not to my liking

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I've had it for about a month. It is a journey of highs and lows; the way the camera works and the image are just startlingly amazingly awesome. The workflow for working with the footage is absolutely primitive and, for someone on a Windows system, simply just not acceptable. So, it is the real deal and it does do what it says it does, but when it comes to working with the footage there's still a long way to go. Apparently that will be clarified and we should get a big boost at NAB...
 
Yeah thats the impression I've been getting from everyone. I suppose it's still early days on the tapeless workflow.
One day we'll wonder how we could have paid 1 large for a gig card.
I wonder if anyones stuck a Panavision Primo on a Red.
It always looked to me more like a film camera then an eng rig.
I really got turned off by the fanboy mentality on their forum not to mention the main guys paranoia. Good luck.
 
davhud said:
Since Jan posted about this a month ago and said the fix was week away taking the camera in for service when even the manufacturer does'nt know whats wrong does'nt seem like a good idea.
Click to expand...

Hi, First why do you think we don't know what is wrong, it is the best fix that we are working out. If you understood how difficult it was to fix one thing without messing with the others that are right then you would be closer to understand the trials we are going through here. We have rejected three solutions but this forth one seemed plausible. So the volunteer we had wasn't able to send his camera in until the 27th of February and now it seems that he is too busy to test. Davhud, if you would like to contact me offline via PM I can arrange to have your camera go through the process. I need someone that will check it out and give a critical review immediately. You sound like the perfect customer to do this.

davhud said:
Actually the lens I was thinking of was the Cooke 18-100 although I think I'd need somebody else to carry it around!
Click to expand...

And that you have someway to support it other than just the B4 lens mount if it is that heavy.

Looking forward to hearing from you in the Private Mailbox.

Best,

jan
 
I'll be happy to let you use my camera if you provide a public explanation of how Panasonic could possibly have shipped these in the first place. I mean a real technical explanation not a this is new tech what do you expect explanation. And once again I ask why should the customers even have to deal with this. You are the manufacturer for cryinout loud. Don't you have a 500?
This is really getting to be too much.
Sorry but I've had it.
 
Man lighten up and work with her. You've documented the problem over and over here now move on. There's absolutely no reason, no matter what you're opinion, to overly run this into the ground. Especially when she's trying to help you.
 
Hey DDP its not just my camera its all the cameras as far as I can tell. I suppose you don't have one you can loan Panasonic. I normally charge for my work or for someone else using my camera. In this case I had to pay for the privilege of being a Guinea Pig. So no I'm not happy with the way this whole thing has gone. If you're happy with the camera fine. I'm not. At this point I'd take an RA from Panasonic and my money back and be done with it. That way they'd have a camera they could play with till their hearts content.

Because of the way this has been handled I believe the fix is not an easy one and reflects something fundamental in the way the camera processes the signal. This means a real fix is going to be expensive. Perhaps a new pcb or a new vision block or a lens that doesn't rely on active circuitry to provide a decent image. I'm sure they're trying to avoid this. But too bad perhaps they should have waited until they had the whole thing better nailed down.

In the interest of fairness I have to disclose that I have been a big Panasonic booster for the last 8 years switching over from a long term relationship with Sony cameras. I switched because I believed the Panasonic cameras provided a more pleasing image.
This camera has really made me reexamine that.
Thanks to everyone who has put up with this but I really felt that if we didn't speak up loudly and long this would never get fixed until the model 505 came out. It still may not.
 
Hi,

So am I to understand that you don't want your camera fixed? Fine. We have a fix. We would like an opinion from an owner. We think it is the solution, but that is us. If anyone else would like to have us install the fix on their camera, and has the time to check it out, please send me a private message.

And Davhud, I am only a product manager in a sales company, I am trying to help. We are linked to the manufacturer by virtue of the product we sell. We have been pushing on this issue for now it seems 3-4 months, and the first solutions they offered were unacceptable, even to us. But the solution that is on the table right now is very promising and we would like feedback from a couple of customers before we open it up to everyone that has an issue with it. Sort of a control group. The only thing I can assure you or anyone else is that your camera will be absolutely no worse than it was and from our perspective it solves the problem.

So the offer is still open, Davhud, but you can wait until we open it as a general announcement. I am still looking for a voluteer that has the problem and the time to give us feedback. Anyone interested, please send PM.

Thanks everyone.

Best,

jan
 
You can PM the fix you're thinking of and I'll tell you whether or not I want it done to my camera. It will save us all alot of time. I'll sign an NDA if you wish.

I want my camera fixed or my money back but the fix can't be just a kludge that will get Panny off the hook cheap on this.

I'll tell what won't be acceptable to me is any sort of behind the lens filtration, or dedicating one of the white balance slots to a permanent 5600k balance.

Since you're not really with the manufacturer perhaps someone from Panny-san would like to come on the board and explain whats going on. I'm still shell shocked that they let this out this way. A basic function of any camera even the cheapest is to be able to render daylight properly out of the box. Did they think no one would notice?

Neither you nor Barry noticed this on the pre-pro models that you played with before they were launched? Didn't Barry shoot this camera outside in Alaska or some such thing.

Why hasn't this been handled internally? Why are we still dealing with this?

Money is the only answer I can come up with. It's too expensive to fix it right.
 
davhud said:
Neither you nor Barry noticed this on the pre-pro models that you played with before they were launched? Didn't Barry shoot this camera outside in Alaska or some such thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. And I used manual white balance. And it performed stellarly. I'm not a big fan of daylight presets; the preset for tungsten makes sense but for daylight, the color throughout the day can be anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000K or more, so I typically perform a manual white balance when shooting outdoors.
 
davhud said:
Since you're not really with the manufacturer perhaps someone from Panny-san would like to come on the board and explain whats going on. I'm still shell shocked that they let this out this way. A basic function of any camera even the cheapest is to be able to render daylight properly out of the box. Did they think no one would notice?
Click to expand...


Well this is not going to happen. I am as close to being with the manufacturer as you will get here and if you want your camera fixed than you can send it in. It is a software realignment. So that is it. That's the entire detail. But at this point we have another customer who has 2 cameras volunteer one of his. So once we fix his one of his cameras, he will compare it to the other. After that we will post how to go about getting this done. Might be a week or so.

Best regards,

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Barry. The problem with white balancing outside is a lot of times you don't want the camera to see white IE: sunsets, dawn, etc. IMHO the camera must have preset that can render a midday scene with no or at least a pleasing color cast. That way the camera will see sort of the way your eye sees. Not really but you get the picture.
Right now what you have to do is do an outside wb during the middle of the day and carry it all day. Sometimes this is not possible. Particularly
if you are in a lot of mixed lighting situations.
I'm glad to hear that they are working on a fix for it. I have to say that something tells me this is CAC related. I not sure why but since its the only circuitry difference between this camera and the 200 to my knowledge if I were trying to fix it that would be where I would look.

If thats the problem I'm sure a finger pointing battle between Fujinon and Panasonic will commence if it hasn't already.
 
Last edited:
The problem's already fixed though, and hopefully they'll have a free update for anyone and everyone.

I'm not saying the preset shouldn't work, of course it should. And it will, they've already said it will. And yes, it's nice to be able to hold the sky coloration for a sunset, etc, although I do normally chase the white balance throughout the day to get consistent shots from scene to scene. But for a specific effect it'd be nice to have a functional white balance preset for daylight. And for shooting under daylight fluos it'd be nice to have.

I view this as a minor inconvenience that's about to be rectified. There are three assignable channels, I set the tungsten preset to PRST, a manual 5600 to ChA, and leave ChB for any necessary modifed white balance needs. It is a workaround, yes. But it is a simple workaround that has zero impact on my work day, and as such it's sooooo incredibly simple that it really is a nonissue when it comes to actually working with the camera in the field. A fix is mandatory, yes, and is forthcoming. It should have left the factory with that fix in place, of course -- nobody's disputing that. But sometimes things happen, and in the context of the things that are going on with the EX1 (vignetting, backfocus issues, etc) or the HD100 (massive chromatic aberrations, split screen issues, issues where it wouldn't even actually be recording your footage, and on and on) I consider this white balance preset issue to be perhaps the most insignificant of camera issues that I may have ever encountered. It's so easy to get around that it shouldn't be slowing you down for a millisecond. Now, if it'd been on the TUNGSTEN preset, I'd be screaming bloody murder, because that preset gets used a lot. Even so, the same workaround would work, so it doesn't actually stop anyone from shooting a single frame of video. Or, if there'd been only one user-assignable white balance channel, I'd be complaining like I do about rolling shutters and the HD100. But the fact of the matter is it is extremely easy to get around the problem. And a fix is forthcoming (or, perhaps, already here).
 
You know my experience is the exact opposite of yours. I rarely use a naked 3200k balance. Unless I'm in the studio the lighting is almost never pure tungsten. So I use the outside preset much more.
I recently did a show in a large hotel were the camera would want 2400k in one place and five feet away it would be 3800k. Obviously a problem. For a show like that with a unreasonable producer constantly white balancing would add a lot of friction to the day. Hence the need not to tie up any slots. I wonder why they didn't go with a 5600 filter wheel like most pro cameras.

It doesn't sound like they've fixed it to me because they still want to see if the owner will accept it after comparing cameras.
I really wish they'd be a little more transparent about the problem. Not being so leads me to believe its a can of worms that they don't want to open. Jan says its a software problem. OK but where in the system. Did they do it originally to cover up some other problem they felt was worse? Inquiring minds you know especially since it's my money not theirs. Sorry but I've got a bad taste in mouth and it may take a shot or two of Lagavullin to remove it.
Cheers
 
davhud said:
I really wish they'd be a little more transparent about the problem. Not being so leads me to believe its a can of worms that they don't want to open. Jan says its a software problem. OK but where in the system. Did they do it originally to cover up some other problem they felt was worse? Inquiring minds you know especially since it's my money not theirs. Sorry but I've got a bad taste in mouth and it may take a shot or two of Lagavullin to remove it.
Cheers
Click to expand...

If the malt is causing your paranoia, I suggest you stop taking it and switch to something a little milder like OJ. ;-)

The lights they used in Japan were in a studio and apparently they were off a couple hundred degrees, they didn't test it outside. So it is a software issue as I said, and it is almost ready to be shared. We feel that is is good, but customers are always a better judge. It is not due to any cover up; it is not due to the CAC; there are other items different here from the 200, in case you didn't notice there is an entirely different CCD, and assembly.

So this is my last post until we have feedback from either the first customer or the gentleman that offered to send in his camera.

Hopefully soon,

Jan
 
I'm too stunned for words. Maybe tomorrow. Make that 3 scotches please.
They can't walk outside to check out a piece of equipment thats going to cost 22,000 dollars and put food on the buyers table. Incredible.
 
Of course they could walk outside. As said before, what color temperature is the light outside? There's probably no more variable circumstance in the shooting world than outside daylight!

Complain about them not having properly-calibrated lamps in the studio if you want, but going outside? They'd get a different answer every five minutes!
 
In a way I was just speaking metaphorically. I mean they must test cameras everyday. I've shot with most cameras they've produced in the last ten years. This is the only one thats had this problem. If it was just problem of lights in the studio why has it taken so long to resolve.
Someone saw this problem and decided to ship the camera anyway. Thanks alot. I'll take another camera shipped from the factory properly calibrated and we'll all be happy right? Just had to do this with a Samsung monitor it was easy as pie. You ship another properly calibrated camera to UPS location near my home and we swap at the store. I don't want a fix I want what I paid for. A camera that works properly. We're six months into this. I'm not at fault here Panasonic is
for shipping defevtive merchandise.
 
davhud said:
In a way I was just speaking metaphorically. I mean they must test cameras everyday. I've shot with most cameras they've produced in the last ten years. This is the only one thats had this problem. If it was just problem of lights in the studio why has it taken so long to resolve. I'm not at fault here Panasonic is for shipping defevtive merchandise.
Click to expand...

Davhud,

For what its worth, as you don't seem to be satisfied with the fact that we have acknowledged the problem and are very close to a solution; the engineers used the exact same method when setting the 5600 for the DVX and the HVX. The problem is vastly more complicated than just lights in the studio, it is about changing the software inside of the camera so that it only affects one thing and not everything else. When the fix is ready we will fix your camera since you seem to rely on the 5600K preset. And while many do not for the very reasons that Barry points out, I respect the fact that you do and it will be fixed. So what's the deal here, you seem to act as though Panasonic has not acknowledged the fact that there is an issue and we won't be fixing the camera. By virtue of this string of posts, whose purpose was at first to alert Panasonic of the problem, and has turned into a thread to let folks know when the fix is in, we will be ready to do so shortly.

For the education of all, the "standard" of 5600K was set by a couple of Kodak engineers that stood outside of the Kodak building one winter day at noon with no clouds in the sky and said, "yep, this should be the standard." As Barry pointed out, there is a lot of variability in outdoor shooting and the pre-set is useful in a limited range, because over a 6 hour shoot it could range from about 4400 to 8500 depending on the time of the year and the physical location.

I mean if I were working outside I would make one of my manual settings the "standard" for the day and use that as my reference for the non-changing white balance because there is that one point when starting where all looks white, but that is just me. And if this didn't work I would white balance against a color until I got it to look the way I wanted it to. Of course this doesn't work for news, so I would go back to my first method, balance once and use that.

But as I looked back through this thread, Davhud, you were the guy that said your manual WB was not functioning correctly as well. I suggested back then that you should have your camera looked at, because all of the other cameras and others on this list confirmed that their cameras worked differently. Is there some reason that you decided not to get your camera looked at?

None the less, we will fix your camera, sorry for your inconvenience.

Best,

Jan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top