Unless I am mistaken, the AK-HC1500 is a lightweight (3.3-lb) camera head designed for remote control and as such has no viewfinder. I also don't think it has P2 slots -- in this, it may be confused with Panasonic's other recently announced camera, the AJ-HPC2000, which will have five P2 slots.joe 1008 said:
1080 Varicam
- Thread starter kai
- Start date
Why not just HD D5? True, it doesn't have variable frame rates, and it tops out at 10-bit 4:2:2 at, I believe, a 250-Mb data rate, but what's stopping Panasonic, the format's originator, from extending it?BobDiaz said:At this point, why limit it to 200 when the P2 can run at higher data rates?JesterJJZ said:DVCPRO200 anyone?
10 bit is useless for mass market when they can not even play 8bit HD on there PC. How can you edit with 10bit when there are no non linear system compatible with 64bit dual core processing under $1000. To waste your resources as a company making something only 200 people use is not worth an efford. I think it is time for more efficient codac better then Kodak. I suspect the 4k will be next NAB when the Dual processor and VISATA become standard and NIVIDIA has good fast video card with 16GB memory and IEE1394B becomes a full blow 800Mb interface.
Panasonic is waiting for everyone to catch up instead of few elite.
There is money in the masses when P2K comes out.
Panasonic is waiting for everyone to catch up instead of few elite.
There is money in the masses when P2K comes out.
joe 1008
Veteran
Tzedekh said:
Sorry, you´re right. But could´nt find a word about 1080p referring to the AJ-HPC2000. The AK-HC1500 seems to have that feature. But why not give that feature to a cam maybe five times more expensive than a HVX that even has variable framerates? Sounds very strange to me. I think they have to release a lower-budget Varicam (P2 makes it possible) because if not they loose a lot of ground on the market against Sony and JVC.
It's supposed to, I think Barry just made a typo. I got his point, though - but I had already commented on it in my own post before he replied.MarcusX said:
Yes, it's great what RED is doing, but as the first offering from a brand new company there are obviously tons of hurdles to overcome and only time will tell what RED is really like. I can't wait for NAB though, I'll tell ya that!Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will. All I'm saying is that it should've been the AJ-HPC2000 and it should've been released a month ago. I do believe that if some of these upstarts can start delivering superior product to the "big guys" offerings at half the price, companies like Sony and Panasonic are going to have to do some major backpedaling to stay competitive in the independent filmmaker segment of their business. Technology has advanced further than what we're being given and it's already obvious from looking at what the HVX is capable of. P2 technology is already here. 24p technology is already here. 2/3" chips are already here. Variable framerates are already here. Where's the damn camera that can do all of these things? Sure, it'll probably come out at some point... but when, and at what cost? If Panasonic doesn't deliver until 2008 and sets a price of $70K+ to "replace" their Varicam, they're fooling themselves if they think they're going to sell any. We should already have this product in our hands TODAY.MarcusX said:
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
BobDiaz said:
Actually I was quite serious.
DavidBeier
Veteran
Out of curiosity, what HD camera is generally used in the industry these days for big budget shoots?
What were Sin City, the Star Wars Prequels, Sky Captain, Once a Time in Mexico, and Spike Lee's new one shot on?
What were Sin City, the Star Wars Prequels, Sky Captain, Once a Time in Mexico, and Spike Lee's new one shot on?
DavidBeier said:
Sin City was F950 recorded 4:4:4 to HDCAM SR (I think)
Star Wars II was F900 but they moved up to 950 and HDCAMSR for Eps III. Mexico was a F900 I think, not sure about Spike Lee or Sky Captain.
The Genesis and the Arri D20 are the real 35mm equivalents. The D20 is very much like a 35mm camera, a big heavy one! The images out of the D20 are pretty comparable to film from what I have seen. To use it costs just as much as film too.
I spoke to a Panasonic Rep at the BSC new equipment show and he said that the Varicam will stay current until 2008 or 2009. He seemed pretty sure about it too.
DavidBeier
Veteran
mmm said:
Thanks, mind if I ask a few more question?
Who makes the Genisis?
What kind of prices do the Genisis and the Arri D20 run for (the F950 appears to cost around $115,000)?
What makes their costs "pretty comparable to film?" Is it the tape stock?
Do all of these cameras refer to some form of tape (in the Ep. III documentary they still appeared to be recording to tape and digitizing)?
What kind of tape is this and what kind of compression does it have?
Do any of these have the ability to record purely digitally (hard drive or P2 type solutions) and, if so, why don't they use it?
Why, if the D20 and the Genisis are the best, have all the major HD projects been shot with weaker cameras?
esperman
Well-known member
Panavision makes the Genesis. It's a 35mm film camera body with a sony HDCAM SR deck. Think of it as a really good cinealt with true 35mm DOF. Superman Returns will be one of the first films to come out on it.
You can only rent the Genesis. Panavision does not sell cameras.
You can only rent the Genesis. Panavision does not sell cameras.
imgentertainment@mac
The Reverend
Rhydon said:
Very True... I think any digital camera company should be very happy that their product is being used widely for any kind of film sub sauté
Barry_Green
Moderator
Most of them record to hard disk or solid state. The F950 can record to an HDCAM-SR tape, which is 440 megabits of MPEG-4. The Viper can record to a 10-minute "Venom FlashPak" which is like a super-turbo-ultra $55,000 P2 card.
As far as making the costs comparable, it's a one-time purchase vs. constant film purchases, but more than that it's the post efforts. Lucas went digital because 99% of what he shoots ends up being composited or digitally altered in some way. So not only would he rent the film cameras, and buy the stock, and pay for the stock to get processed, but then he'd also have to pay for a 2K digital scan of the film so that his compositors and digital effects artists could work on the footage. The way he saw it, if you're going to end up in the digital domain anyway, why not start there? So he used the F900 (and later the F950) and starts and finishes in the digital domain.
As far as making the costs comparable, it's a one-time purchase vs. constant film purchases, but more than that it's the post efforts. Lucas went digital because 99% of what he shoots ends up being composited or digitally altered in some way. So not only would he rent the film cameras, and buy the stock, and pay for the stock to get processed, but then he'd also have to pay for a 2K digital scan of the film so that his compositors and digital effects artists could work on the footage. The way he saw it, if you're going to end up in the digital domain anyway, why not start there? So he used the F900 (and later the F950) and starts and finishes in the digital domain.
DavidBeier
Veteran
Why does Lucas chose to shoot to tape instead of just record purely digital? I mean, doesn't that mean you'll have to spend more time digitizing and also have a possible (though very minor) loss of quality every time you run it through a head?
DavidBeier
Veteran
^
Nope.
On the making of feature, they talk about having to send the tapes over to be digitized. Once again, I'm not sure why.
Nope.
On the making of feature, they talk about having to send the tapes over to be digitized. Once again, I'm not sure why.