My source is conclusive.
10.20.09
- Thread starter dpryke
- Start date
My source is conclusive.
Ted Ramasola
Veteran
Barry_Green
Moderator
Really?
And, how many chips are there in the DSLRs? One? And how many in the 2/3" camera... three? With an optical prism and about one-micron tolerance for aligning them? I'm sure that's really cheap to develop...
And then let's look at economy of scale -- how many DSLRs will they sell? Fifty thousand each month, easy. And how many 2/3" video cameras will they sell? Fifty each month, maybe?
Why is it that every video camera user thinks they understand a manufacturing business as incredibly complex as broadcast professional electronics???
But, whatever. If it's popular to think that there's no valid reason, and it's just that the manufacturers are greedy meanies, how can you fight popular opinion?
GuyB
Well-known member
Really
But the one in the DSLR is more than 3 times bigger than the ones in the 2/3" and it costs a lot more to make a single large sensor than lots of tiny little ones...
The larger the sensor the easier the alignment given the same resolution sensor, yet we have cheap high res 1/3" video with 3 sensors
In any event, you might want to read my origonal post again, I said the future is a single large sensor, not a 3 sensor block...
Sure, but why? Not because people don't want to buy 2/3" cameras but because they don't want to spend the money the manufacturers ask for them.
Why is it you make assumptions about my knowledge & level of understanding? In any respect, you are also just another one of these 'video camera users' so are in no position to cast aspersions on others like that...
Barry_Green
Moderator
But not when you're making a couple of million of 'em at a time, versus making a thousand of them at a time. That's what I'm talking about.
Yes, but again, the 1/3" cameras are going to sell a hundred times as many as the 2/3" cameras, and that's if they don't share blocks with the consumer side. Something like the low-cost Sony or Panasonic cams share chip blocks with consumer cameras, and the consumer cams sell easily 100x as many as the broadcast division. Canon, when introducing the HV20, said they expected to sell 50,000 per month. I would be very surprised if Panasonic sells 500 HMC40s per month. So when you can cross-collateralize across the high-volume consumer sector, you can get the economies of scale that make these things cost practically nothing to make.
Can't do that with 2/3".
Future for who though? Video companies have always had the option of making one chip or three, and the broadcast industry settled on three chips years and years ago. I can't think of a single-chip camera from a broadcast company. The F35 maybe? But even that doesn't count because it's sold as digi-cine, not broadcast.
For consumers, the one-chip solution will probably win out. For indie film guys, one chip has a lot of appeal. For Red, it was the obvious and only choice -- you can't use PL lenses on a system that has a beamsplitting prism in there. But single-chip has its share of problems too.
I agree that I, and I'm sure anyone doing video for a profession, would prefer a 2/3" product instead of 1/2" or 1/3", at the same or comparable price. And I'm certain the manufacturers know that. So again, the question becomes: are the manufacturers stupid? Or greedy meanies? Or is there actually a reason they can't give us these products at those price points? I choose option C, but I know that's not the popular choice.
Because your post that started this seemed to be saying that we should be able to have 2/3" cameras for the price of SLRs, which I took as being completely implausible. Even so, I've been in manufacturing of products and software for the last 25 years, and I've spent plenty of time talking to manufacturers of electronics, here and abroad; I've been involved in developing and bringing physical products to market and some of my business interests have extended into electronics products, I've spent lots of time with electronics manufacturers and engineers and such plenty of times in doing assessments, and the story I hear seems pretty consistent across the board. So I think I have a reasonable idea of what goes into this, and when someone makes statements that are completely at odds with the world as I understand it, I try to point out how that's not possible.
I'm not "casting aspersions", I'm asking why people who are not in the manufacturing business, especially a dedicated niche such as broadcast video camera manufacturing, think that they know the business better than those who are in it? Is that an unreasonable question to ask? This is just the latest thread of many, so I apologize to you for this particular thread being the one that broke the camel's back.
And even if I was just "a video camera user", I don't go around telling the manufacturers (or everyone else) that they don't know what they're doing, they're gouging us, they're ripping us off, they're deliberately crippling the products they sell to us, they're "protecting" their higher-end products, or so many other statements that folks seem to want to make, when they have no idea what goes on inside those factories, or the support systems the marketing or shipping or inventory costs or dealership infrastrcture or warranty service departments or anything else. And this pillorying of the companies seems to be cropping up more and more lately, and it just doesn't make any sense at all.
that page is not working?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Anyway, I bet dimes to doughnuts the new announcement is an EX5. Google it, you'll see European sites are already listing it.
http://www.mitcorp.com/public/view_...)-SxS-Solid-State-shoulder-mount-HD-camcorder
http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/view_item_cat.php?catalogue_number=sony_pmw-ex5
They don't have the specs listed, but they do have placeholder pages ready for it.
http://www.mitcorp.com/public/view_...)-SxS-Solid-State-shoulder-mount-HD-camcorder
http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/view_item_cat.php?catalogue_number=sony_pmw-ex5
They don't have the specs listed, but they do have placeholder pages ready for it.
cheezweezl
Veteran
i see specs on both of these pages and they appear to be the same as ex3 specs. is this just a model number variation of the ex3?
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's why I say it's a placeholder page. They probably just copied the EX3 page until they fill it in with EX5 specifications.
But, this remains speculation until the actual formal announcement comes out.
But, this remains speculation until the actual formal announcement comes out.
Humanoid Typhoon
Well-known member
I'd really NOT prefer a shoulder cam. Hopefully that's not the case. An updated EX1 with better handholding ergonomics (For ME) would be on point....along with an audio system like Panasonics with live switching from onboard to xlr audio. Hate Sony/Canon's audio interface. Have to stop recording to switch -_-.
GuyB
Well-known member
The fact is that 2/3" cameras have been around for how long? & yet we are expected to believe that they are still something special & still so costely to manufacture as 10 years ago? I think not. The difference in physical size between 1/2" and 2/3" sensors is quite small, % wise less than the difference between 1/3" & 1/2". There seems this completely over sensationalised holy grain thought that 2/3" is still something special when its not. There is much more to a camera than the sensor size so I don't argue that they put more advanced electronics in 2/3" cameras which makes them more expensive but to what degree. Its only by limiting the 2/3" product range that the market has been to accept such high prices for 2/3" equipment. Everyone said the same thing about 1/2" and how much more expensive it is, but then Sony does show what can be done in that case (credit where credit is due). How much more is an EX1 to a Z7?
We know full well that most camera manufacturers deliberately cripple equipment (or deliberatly cripple by design) to protect their existing revenues & other selling models in the future. Competition helps to protect us from this a lot but manufacturers know where their bread is buttered so they don't have to worry too much about each other out doing them too much. Companies like Red & Convergent Design have shown, with varying degree's of success, what can be done (how long before you see a Sony camera with 160Mbps MPG2 the Sony chips in the PWD700/800 support but they limit to 50Mbps? Sure at the moment its more due to the Optical disks writing speed limitation but when they finally put SxS in such a camera what bit rate would you put your money on it topping out at?
Bassman2003
Veteran
You are both raising good points.
The presence of the EX-1 camera is what is shaking things up.
I am quite surprised it came from Sony to be honest.
A 1/2" chip 1080p camera with optics for $6000.
A point about full raster chips is debunked
A point about optics cost is debunked
A point about smaller chips size (1/2 instead of 1/3") is debunked
When you look at a nicely setup image from this camera with a Nano flash, one does wonder how far away are the 2/3" chip cameras?
Not $20,000 for body only.
I am not in manufacturing, but does a PDW-800 body cost $23,000 more to make than the EX-1?
If they want to sell it at $29,000, then that is their business, but what Guy said about price is very relevant.
A lot of people want the 2/3" chip cameras, but the price alone is what stops them from buying.
Now that 1/3" chip cameras are going for the news market, the stigma that 2/3" chips are only for networks is out the window as well.
So I do not think they are greedy meanies, but at some point this "older" model starts to look a bit out of step with the current marketplace.
The presence of the EX-1 camera is what is shaking things up.
I am quite surprised it came from Sony to be honest.
A 1/2" chip 1080p camera with optics for $6000.
A point about full raster chips is debunked
A point about optics cost is debunked
A point about smaller chips size (1/2 instead of 1/3") is debunked
When you look at a nicely setup image from this camera with a Nano flash, one does wonder how far away are the 2/3" chip cameras?
Not $20,000 for body only.
I am not in manufacturing, but does a PDW-800 body cost $23,000 more to make than the EX-1?
If they want to sell it at $29,000, then that is their business, but what Guy said about price is very relevant.
A lot of people want the 2/3" chip cameras, but the price alone is what stops them from buying.
Now that 1/3" chip cameras are going for the news market, the stigma that 2/3" chips are only for networks is out the window as well.
So I do not think they are greedy meanies, but at some point this "older" model starts to look a bit out of step with the current marketplace.
Barry_Green
Moderator
10 years ago a VariCam cost $70,000. Today you can buy a better VariCam 2700 for $19,500.
10 years ago an F900 cost $100,000. Today you can buy a PDW700 which will outperform it, for $30k. Obviously they're not as costly to manufacture as they were 10 years ago.
It's actually exactly the same difference in size. 1/2" chips twice as big in surface area than 1/3" chips, and 2/3" chips are twice as big in surface area than 1/2" chips.
Of course, the particular chips also vary by manufacturer; a JVC HD100 "1/3" chip was about 10% smaller than an HVX200 1/3" chip, which in and of itself was about 10% smaller than an HPX170's 1/3" chip... there's nothing truly standardized about chip sizes.
Well, no matter how it gets sliced, here's the deal: nobody's buying 2/3" cameras anymore. They're too expensive. So either they'll slash the prices incredibly, or they'll quit offering them altogether if people just won't pay for them.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed. The point I contend with is the idea that they could just slash the prices 75% or more because it's all just inflated profit. It isn't just what it costs to make, it's what it costs to develop, fabricate, manufacture, market, repair, and support. All that has to be factored in, and when the market is so much smaller, the costs that get passed on to each model have to be that much more.
The revolution underway in pricing is, in my opinion, going to destroy the 2/3" camera (as we know it) completely. The dealer network is already in peril. How many of you would buy a 2/3" camera online from B&H, instead of going to your local dealer? How many rely on the service and support that local dealer provides? If you're not buying from him, he's not in business. And how much of the existing 2/3" market is going to survive when there's no support out there at all, because the price tags got too low that nobody can afford to keep it alive?
I think the day isn't all that far away when paradises like Abel Cine Tech and Spec-Comm are gone, and we're actually buying our broadcast cameras from Best Buy and Wal-Mart, because of pricing pressures. Right now you get a five-year warranty on P2 products. When the low-price marketplace commoditizes camera selling, as it's close to doing, I think you'll see promotions like that go out the window. It'll get to the point where you get a 90 day warranty and no support and you buy it at a box house and you're on your own.
That is not the way things are today. The way things are today you get a five-year warranty, an excellent dealer network, sales support engineers who will fly to your location to do an installation, etc. All of that is factored into the price, along with the costs to manufacture and the smaller number of units sold. But with Sony pricing the PDW700 at $30k, and Panasonic slashing the P2 VariCams in half, that type of support is probably doomed...
... or, the prices will go up, and the only companies who will buy the products are those who understand and value service and support are willing to pay for it.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Good posts and points.
It seems the pricing/business model was/is based upon the networks to have unending deep pockets.
The manufacturers could get a heafty margin on broadcast stuff and this would basically fund the rest of the product line.
There is a lot of profit in support when companies are willing to pay for it.
The problem now is the manufacturers are needing to rely upon the middle segment more and more and this segment is not going to need people to fly to a location for support!
This segment, myself included does not like to go to a dealer and pay often a lot more when in todays world, most product support is through the manufacturer anyway.
This marketplace seems to be in flux and settlling out. We will see if tomorrow's announcement is another step in this direction.
It seems the pricing/business model was/is based upon the networks to have unending deep pockets.
The manufacturers could get a heafty margin on broadcast stuff and this would basically fund the rest of the product line.
There is a lot of profit in support when companies are willing to pay for it.
The problem now is the manufacturers are needing to rely upon the middle segment more and more and this segment is not going to need people to fly to a location for support!
This segment, myself included does not like to go to a dealer and pay often a lot more when in todays world, most product support is through the manufacturer anyway.
This marketplace seems to be in flux and settlling out. We will see if tomorrow's announcement is another step in this direction.
astigmatic
Well-known member
I don't think 2/3 is going away. If the higher end market for them is drying up that just means that 2/3's will eventually be downgraded to thier cheaper camera lines (replacing 1/3 or 1/2 cameras) and the 2/3 chip will be replaced by full frame.
Chadfish
Veteran
Coming from a military intelligence background, I see the way technology is marketed to be fashioned so the customer is milked of as much money as possible. Once R&D is covered through sales of a product, then the profit margin is very high. With new tech, (not necessarily cameras) the military gets it and keeps it secret while they employ it. Then when others get the tech they release it to the civilian market, knowing they already have the next better model, and the next and the next already. The civilian market sells the early versions of the tech at high prices, then lowers the price somewhat after R&D is covered, and the new tech is inline to come out.
Now, does it really cost that much more to make a 32 gig SxS card that a 16gig? There are levels of pricing so you can exploit every level of the market. I bet the 64gig SxS cards will be expensive at first, then relatively inexpensive when 128gig come out. And I'm sure 128gig cards are already done, secretly sitting on a shelf, waiting for their turn. It's just metal, plastic and silicone! Once the production line is constructed, itjs just as easy to make one kind as another. Does some magic happen that makes a card that cost 1500.00 last year all of a sudden cost 850.00? Nope, they just know that the new "best" thing is coming, so they better make room for it, and mark down the old "best" thing. After they have had the factory make zillions of these things they have to sell cheaper, or not make money on the surplus. I think it goes that way with any tech, chips included. I would bet they already have the next kind of chip that is better than CMOS or CCD developed, but are waiting until they play out these chips for max profit. Of course I know nothing about chips, but I do know that technology is developed with max profit in mind.
They always have more than they show, and always charge more than it's worth.
Chadfish
Now, does it really cost that much more to make a 32 gig SxS card that a 16gig? There are levels of pricing so you can exploit every level of the market. I bet the 64gig SxS cards will be expensive at first, then relatively inexpensive when 128gig come out. And I'm sure 128gig cards are already done, secretly sitting on a shelf, waiting for their turn. It's just metal, plastic and silicone! Once the production line is constructed, itjs just as easy to make one kind as another. Does some magic happen that makes a card that cost 1500.00 last year all of a sudden cost 850.00? Nope, they just know that the new "best" thing is coming, so they better make room for it, and mark down the old "best" thing. After they have had the factory make zillions of these things they have to sell cheaper, or not make money on the surplus. I think it goes that way with any tech, chips included. I would bet they already have the next kind of chip that is better than CMOS or CCD developed, but are waiting until they play out these chips for max profit. Of course I know nothing about chips, but I do know that technology is developed with max profit in mind.
They always have more than they show, and always charge more than it's worth.
Chadfish
GuyB
Well-known member
But does a PDW800 cost about the same as a DSR500 did? They are similar level cameras of their times.
ignoring the fact that 1/2" type chips are closer to 1/3" physically because its all relative in the end the proof is more about maths, but there is a 1/2-1/3 = 1/6" difference between a 1/3" & 1/2". 1/6" is 50% of the 1/3", BUT, there is the same 2/3-1/2=1/6" difference between a 1/2" and 2/3", and 1/6" is only 33% increase on a 1/2". In simple terms, the 1/6" increase is a bigger % increase from 1/3" than from 1/2", as I said origonally. Increaseing a 1/2" sensor by 50% would make it 3/4" not 2/3"
I know, but all we can really discuss is the theory because of such things...
I'm sure Panasonic are selling their new 2/3" camera well enough, its the first camera to show close to what I am saying, 2/3" shouldn't have to be mega bucks. Its just a shame that camera has lower than optimal resolution sensors :-( If Sony made a 2/3" EX series with a similar incremental increase from the 1/2" EX's like the EX's are from the 1/3" camers it would sell like the preverbial hot cakes (do hot cakes really sell that well???)