4K and AF200 not on the table... for now anyway.

[Barry_Green]

GoPro released the Hero 3 only a year after Hero 2.

Eeek! I saw that the Hero2 came out in 2011, and I got one of the first Hero3 Black edition in 2013, so I did the math, but I didn't account for it being like November 2011, so ... yes, it was a little over a year between the Hero2 and the Hero3.

Blackmagic camera is readily available.

I had said that I hadn't been keeping up with it. When did it become readily available (and by that, I mean -- stores having it in stock, not having to buy someone's used one on ebay). I had asked a few months ago if the situation was changed and told it wasn't, but I do see that they're now available in stock at TMS.

To make the point more so: Both of these companies are new to hardware and camera world. Panny has been at this for a LONG time. Which means they have the resource and experience and should be able to easily outpace these small guys. But they aren't.

Yes, and no. Both of those companies make (basically) one camera. Panasonic has a line of camcorders that they have to maintain. If everyone in the camera division of the company can work full-time on just the AF100, then yes, they could turn out AF100 updates quicker than they have. But they don't work that way. They work on the 2/3" lineup for a while, and then on the handheld 1/3", and then on the smaller-sensor stuff, etc. (note: not saying that's a better way for the consumer, I'm just pointing out that BlackMagic and GoPro don't have huge camera lineups, BlackMagic has one camera on the market and GoPro has three versions of the same camera on the market). Just pointing out that they're very different.

As far as my engineering or manufacturing background to understand technology, prices, and cameras? While I know quite a fair deal, you also don't need to be a camera engineer or work in manufacturing to understand in depth what makes up the various parts of a digital camera and what bottlenecks there are in camera design. We all know frame-rate and codec limitations are separate from sensor issues. We all know companies withhold software based features to market at different price points. And we all know there are various costs associated with R&D time, marketing, economies of scale VS niche markets, etc.

Well, with all due respect, I don't know, and I sincerely doubt anyone outside of the actual industry does know, all those things. We may have some peripheral level of knowledge about some of these things, but that doesn't mean that you can take snippets of information from here and there and then proclaim that "they could make this product, at this price point, at this profit margin". That's just an untenable leap of a conclusion! There are licensing and patent and marketing issues, there's engineering and design issues (just look at the years of threads from Red and Ikonoskop and now DBolex as they try to figure out things that they never even knew were going to be a problem).

Point is -- unless you are in the business as a camera manufacturer, then you do not know the business of camera manufacturing and are unqualified to make assessments and generalizations as to what they can or cannot do, at what prices, and in what timeframes, right?

A Sony FS700 @ $8K in 2012 now means that the bar has been set: An S35 sensor, 4K, 240fps, ND Filters, XLR, etc. is now defined as an $8K pricepoint in 2012. Max.

Agreed. Except it's not 4K or 240fps yet, and as far as I know we still don't know what the true cost for that capability is going to be. So what we can say is that an S35 sensor, 1080p, 240fps at lowered resolution, ND filters, XLR etc is at an $8K price point. Which is fine, but let's go look at the title of the thread, we were talking about an AF successor, which is sitting at about a $3995 price point, half what the FS700 is. So to expect an AF successor to do what an $8,000 camera does, is totally unrealistic.

Look, nothing against Panny. They make great cameras. But let's no pretend they're not behind the game here.

I don't think anyone is saying that they're not fielding a competitive full line of large-sensor cameras. Clearly they have not staked out high-end digital cinema as a market that they want to compete in, against the likes of the C300, C500, Red, etc.

2.5 years without any entry into the large sensor camera format.

Which takes away that they were the FIRST entry into the large sensor camera market. And still, they're the only entry anywhere near their price point, that has the features it has.

A pretty lame af100a update 2+ years later.

It was certainly underwhelming when contrasted against the introductions from the other manufacturers. But, again, it holds a unique segment in the market, and is still the lowest-priced professional video camera with a large sensor. WE don't have to love it, we may still prefer that they'd done something bigger and better, but I'm pointing out that from their perspective, they've targeted a niche and they're filling that niche.

But it's more than time for a knock-out AF100 successor as well as an S35 model for those who desire the larger sensor.

No disagreement at all. I really wish they'd come out with a higher-end, more robust model.

AF200:
Greatly Improved IQ/DR sensor
Better resolution - 2.5-3K
1080p LED LCD
120fps burst-free recording; 240fps recording (burst free?)
Better codec options for straight to SD recording
4-channel audio (2x XLR + internal mics backup, as the HVX200 allowed)
Optional module for attachment: MicroP2/Any-brand SSD recording for straight to ProRes
No cheap software limitations (full VFR, timelapse, multi-codec support, focus assists, etc.)
Free Firmware software updates that add additional support and features throughout camera lifespan
All-in-one AF100 features i.e. focus assists/waveform/ergos/XLR/ND filters/etc.

~ $5.5-$6K

I can't disagree with any of what you're asking for, except I'd drop the idea of 2.5-3k and say just go straight for 4K. Which Miyagi has already basically said they will be doing with all new HD products going forward, so I don't think that's too much to ask!

S35 Model:
All features above @ S35 sensor + 4K resolution
Adaptable mount options
Better in-built SSD/MicroP2 recording options
RAW recording

~ $7.5-$8k

I don't know what's possible at the price point, but I like very much what you're outlining here, and it's basically exactly what I've asked, begged, and ordered them to build. Unfortunately I'm not in charge of the factory over there... But I totally agree, this is the product that they should have released and should be releasing. And I don't want them to stop at 240fps, I want sensor windowing so we can get 480fps at 720p and 960fps at standard-def too...

 

[pulpfiction007]

One thing I can say is using Black Magic cams or any other "sensor in a box" design is NOT a good comparison for the cams Panasonic puts out. Panasonic cams have full features, don't require a bunch of add ons to function, don't require waiting for firmware to perform as promised, etc. It's cool if people like those designs, but they cut a lot of cost by cutting a lot of features typically on a Panasonic camera.

I do like the idea of an S35 AF200 for $8,000. Seems to be feasible, but it would all depend on what Panny's game plan is moving forward.

 

[filmguy123]

Sounds like we're on very similar pages, Barry. Keep petitioning them!

One thing I can say is using Black Magic cams or any other "sensor in a box" design is NOT a good comparison for the cams Panasonic puts out. Panasonic cams have full features, don't require a bunch of add ons to function, don't require waiting for firmware to perform as promised, etc. It's cool if people like those designs, but they cut a lot of cost by cutting a lot of features typically on a Panasonic camera.

Totally agree! Which is why I haven't bought one. And I'm still not a fan of Sony's Ergos and some other issues with their cameras. Which is precisely why I still care about Panasonic's next camera.

 

[harddrive]

Interesting. Panasonic considers it to be the biggest hit they've ever had.
........
Okay, first of all, let's be clear -- it DID "clean up". It was massively successful.

My saying "a missed opportunity" is not the same as saying it wasn't successful. I'm sure a lot were sold. But from what I saw, (and maybe it varies throughout the world?) then in terms of numbers it was heavily outsold by the Z1, and other later HDV cameras - in that sense I think it's accurate to say it didn't "clean up". I put that down to the fact that when faced with a stark choice between absolute quality and longish uninterrupted runtime, it was the latter that most people saw as indispensable. No, not all people, but most.

But it needn't have had to be a choice. I was using a 2/3" camera at the time, but if I'd been in the market for one or the other then, as things stood I'd have also had to go with the Z1. But a HVX200 with HDV *as well*!?! Now you're talking! Obvious choice of the two, why even think about a Z1 at all? However well the HVX200 sold, it could only have done far better with the dual codec/media option. I'm personally convinced that then it would have substantially outsold the Z1, really would have "cleaned up". That's why I think it was a missed opportunity by Panasonic, an error of strategy.

Actually, going a little further back, I think the worst strategic error that Panasonic made was making the first (2/3") P2 cameras P2 only. There was no denying that solid state and file based recording bought some benefits then and would increasingly be the way forward - but *THEN* they also brought huge potential problems of workflow for many of the target customers. For a lot of users, consumable media made far more sense for them at the time. The answer would have been a P2/tape hybrid camera, and remember we're talking about SD only days here. It wouldn't have been too difficult to engineer a shouldermount camera with P2 slots and a DV drive, surely? It wouldn't even need to be DVCPro or DVCam for recording. So record to either/or P2 or DV tape - or both together. That would have enabled scenarios such as the tape being carried away to such as a satellite truck whilst the card material got used for the field edit. Best of both worlds?

But the fact of the matter is that it was never going to be; Panasonic was not a member of the HDV Coalition, and so it could never have had HDV on it.

But the whole point is that they should have been members then, surely!? Or are you saying they were actually excluded by other parties from being members? If so, I'm very surprised - I was led to believe it was Panasonics choice not to join the HDV coalition, their choice not to have anything to do with HDV. Coalition non-membership and no usage of HDV are one and the same point.

I agree entirely. But it wasn't to be, and in retrospect I don't know that we can say that it did them any damage. They sold truckloads and boatloads of the HVX as it is. But I do agree with you, it would have made a great camera even more flexible.

I disagree about it not doing them any damage. It may not have seemed like it at the time, and they may have sold truckloads - but I'd strongly argue they would have sold truckloads more of a hybrid product. In the longer term, I'd say the damage has been that it didn't enable them to deliver a knockout blow.

It's a well known marketing strategy that if you introduce a new technology, there is often quite a short window to establish complete market dominance. If you don't do exactly that, you are risking your competitors not just simply catching up and introducing a straight rival, but exploiting updated technology to produce something better. And this is especially true of technologies which may be seen as ahead of their time. By their very nature, they tend to have relatively slow take up times.

And you may not agree, but I'd say that is exactly what happened with Sony and SxS. They took advantage of technology such as ExpressCard instead of Cardbus, and weren't tied up by the early legacy issues of P2 card architecture. They also had luck - not least being someone discovering they could use cheap SDHC cards via an adaptor. But most of all, by the time Sony brought product to market, then even if Panasonic may have been happy financially with the number of units sold - Panasonic hadn't achieved that all important dominance. Some people were using P2, some were using XDCAM disc - most were just waiting and using tape in the meantime.

I'd argue that if Panasonic had embraced first a hybrid tape/P2 camera, then a hybrid P2-DVCProHD/HDV version of the HVX200, they may well have achieved dominance before SxS arrived. Have got many more users onto a P2 based system - even if much actual usage was at that time onto tape. That's why I describe the HVX200 as a missed opportunity. Let down by strategy and marketing - not technology.

 

[hscully]

What about not 4K? What about maxing out at 2K with a log option? How about a 2K AFXXX? I read all the time about movies and TV going out acquired on Alexa SXS 12 bit 4:4:4 ProRes at 1920 X 1080 with Clog in AVC-Ultra. It's a cool option I think. I don't think the whole world needs to be 4K right away.

 

[pulpfiction007]

What about not 4K? What about maxing out at 2K with a log option? How about a 2K AFXXX? I read all the time about movies and TV going out acquired on Alexa SXS 12 bit 4:4:4 ProRes at 1920 X 1080 with Clog in AVC-Ultra. It's a cool option I think. I don't think the whole world needs to be 4K right away.

I don't think it needs 4K now either...but if we're talking about a product coming out 1 to 2 years from now, it might be wise of them to have a 4k option on board, along with HD.

 

[harddrive]

I don't think the whole world needs to be 4K right away.

No, but it's the difference between making use of what you've already got, and a new product now.

No one is suggesting that all 1080 only cameras have suddenly become obsolescent and need to be replaced overnight - but if you're about to buy a new camera now, maybe 4k should at least be thought of? Especially the more you go towards "digital cinema", where 4k is likely to make most inroads earliest.

And if you're talking about a new product announcement which may not even be available until some months later, then remain on sale for maybe 2-3 years more, that becomes even more true.

Realistically, anybody announcing a large format camera now in the $6k+ price bracket has got to be thinking of something 4k capable - even if the 4k requires an extra recorder.

The more expensive you go, the more significant 4k ability becomes. Even if 4k won't be widely transmitted for a while, there are already strong moves towards acquiring top end material in 4k now.

 

[Bassman2003]

Would you still want 4k if it would be more difficult to expand dynamic range? A 2k chip probably offers more possibility of higher framerates and better image quality given today's tech. Sort of like the HVX-200. It was what they had to offer for the day but people really wanted full raster... Yes, 4k will be the norm eventually but I would prefer a mature 2k over a young 4k design.

 

[hscully]

That's why I think that Sony nailed the feature set on the F5 and F55. The ability to do HD, 2K and eventually 4K creates a strong position. I understand that for long lived content that 4K may be a good idea but that it is necessary is debatable. Does anyone lament that their old TV shows are woeful SD? I dunno. How many of these 4K projects, delivered in HD are really going to go back to redo them in 4K?

I was thinking that it would keep the price down, make data more managable, and provide a WAY better deliverable than we have now from 4:2:0 8bit . I'd be happy with AVC Intra 4:2:2 10 bit. A potential AVC ultra 4:4:4 12 bit would be plenty for me for a few years I think, including indy features and commercial stuff. It just seems realistic because it's the direction Panasonic is going with their high end ENG formats. Plus this is about the successor to the AF100 not a competition with top of the line cinema cameras.

Even if I had an option for HD, 2K, and 4K I really would have more of a need for HD and 2K and if it served to keep the price down to under $10K that would put it in my wheel house.

 

[filmguy123]

I'm really only interested in 4K for the sake of things like motion tracking, warp stabilizer, down-rezzing to higher IQ, and reframe/cropping shots from live event run'n'gun when needed.

Which is why to me, 2.5k-3K is plenty. I don't see a need to deliver in 4K for quite some time. Most home clients finally got blu-ray and HDTVs not long ago. Most big venues that I show in don't have 4K projectors and won't for some time. Most of my content is consumed via the web.

That said, we already know 4K is a talking point and it really is "the standard" that motion pictures have been shot at for years (same resolution as film). Also, we know it can be done at $4K price point standalone via BlackMagic and $8K all-in-one Sony with a bunch of other features like 240fps, I expect to see 4K in $6,000 cameras next year and I'm assuming Panny won't risk being a non-4K camera when they finally launch their new stuff.

 

[hscully]

I'm really only interested in 4K for the sake of things like motion tracking, warp stabilizer, down-rezzing to higher IQ, and reframe/cropping shots from live event run'n'gun when needed.

Which is why to me, 2.5k-3K is plenty. I don't see a need to deliver in 4K for quite some time. Most home clients finally got blu-ray and HDTVs not long ago. Most big venues that I show in don't have 4K projectors and won't for some time. Most of my content is consumed via the web.

That said, we already know 4K is a talking point and it really is "the standard" that motion pictures have been shot at for years (same resolution as film). Also, we know it can be done at $4K price point standalone via BlackMagic and $8K all-in-one Sony with a bunch of other features like 240fps, I expect to see 4K in $6,000 cameras next year and I'm assuming Panny won't risk being a non-4K camera when they finally launch their new stuff.

I agree with it all except to look at the BMCC as the bellweather for price point. I'm glad to see it going in that direction but the BMCC is missing big blocks of funtionality and the 700 requires an upgrade for 4K that brings the whole operation up over $10K. The great thing about the AF100 is that it does what I need and is affordable but I think 4K cameras in the next couple of year, BMCC notwitstanding, are going to be in that $12 - $18K, which is still great but not in the AF100 range.

 

[Bassman2003]

Well, I like to keep things very realistic when it comes to cameras. You can not just look for numbers like megapixels or 4k. There are consumer camcorders that shoot 1080p, that does not mean anybody here wants to use them.

If we are talking about a true AF-100 successor, then let be real, you are not going to get the image quality out of a 4k implementation for $4,000. I think there is a better chance of getting a very solid 1080p camera with great color, accurate color, pro functionality and an improved codec. People like Panasonic cameras but I think they need to do a little soul searching as a company. Putting more color controls in the menu like a martix and others would be a great start. The lower-end consumer expects more these days and they have to decide if they want to give it. $10,000 is the new $20,000

 

[harddrive]

Would you still want 4k if it would be more difficult to expand dynamic range? A 2k chip probably offers more possibility of higher framerates and better image quality given today's tech.

Even if I had an option for HD, 2K, and 4K I really would have more of a need for HD and 2K and if it served to keep the price down to under $10K that would put it in my wheel house.

It's worth looking broadly at what Sony and Canon have done with their recent large sensor cameras. Firstly, 4k makes good 2k cheaply. By that you have to think how the chips on these cameras are engineered. Basically, they are 3840x2160 active photosites in a Bayer pattern. OK, what we call a 4k chip - but because the dimensions are exactly twice 1920x1080, it means a high quality 1080p output can be derived easily from it with little processing. Read out 2x2 Bayer blocks and derive single output pixels directly from them. No need for conventional deBayering or rescaling, which are expensive to do well and tend to be power hungry.

So - it's worth getting a 4k chip to do good 1080 cheaply. (Think of the Canon C300 and C100, with no 4k upgrade route - they still use a 4k chip.) But it also means that if you read the chip and deBayer normally, the maximum resolution can be extracted from it - typically about 80% max of the sensor dimensions for luminance. Doing that in camera is likely to be expensive, so at the moment it seems sensible to offer the option of being able to record the RAW data from the sensor, and do the deBayering etc in software. Do that, and the extra expense really becomes a recorder to handle 4k RAW data - and since there's a lot of it, and it arrives fast, that's why they tend to be expensive. But at least the option is there. And taking the Sony F5 as an example, you may use it much of the time in normal HD mode, recording internally to XDCAM422 or XAVC, then hire the 4kRAW back for jobs which need it.

The real issue for Panasonic, looking forward, is what chip they use. Everything else then follows. And realistically that now has to be a 4k (3840x2160) one. Apart from any actual 4k ability, it's an optimal way to get good 1080!

With the AF100, they genetically modified one of their AVCCAM range to have parts of the front end of a GH1 and a GH2. The concept was to get the video performance of the GH1/2 in video mode into the ergonomics of a true video camera body. The advantage at the time was by using existing technology it reduced development costs, and mean they could bring it out far more quickly. But at the end of the day, it's DSLR video in a better package. Any "AF200" needs to have a true "designed for video" chip as it's most important improvement, and currently that means doing the same as Sony as Canon - 3840x2160 - not making the best of an existing stills sensor.

 

[Bassman2003]

Good points and I agree. But, I think you need to factor in Panasonic's business history and other cameras in their lineup. They are not going to give you everything at a $5,000 pricepoint. The camera manufacturers have always priced on end image quality. There is/was always a reason why some cameras cost $20,000 and others cost $5,000. If any other camera on the market is a guide for an AF-200 it would be the C100. This pricepoint means limitations even though technically things are possible these days.

 

[harddrive]

If we are talking about a true AF-100 successor, then let be real, you are not going to get the image quality out of a 4k implementation for $4,000. I think there is a better chance of getting a very solid 1080p camera with ..........

And referring to my post above, then a 3840x2160 chip gives solid 1080p easily and cheaply out of the box. Yet opens the door to getting 4k via an extra recorder. The key point is that needn't make the basic camera any more expensive - the extra cost is purely in the fast and high capacity extra recorder that's needed.

 

[harddrive]

But, I think you need to factor in Panasonic's business history and other cameras in their lineup. They are not going to give you everything at a $5,000 pricepoint. .......... If any other camera on the market is a guide for an AF-200 it would be the C100. This pricepoint means limitations even though technically things are possible these days.

And I've just looked up the B&H pricepoint for a C100 and ....it's $5,499! A little over $5k, but close!?

Consequently, it's quite realistic to imagine something like the C100 (3840x2160 chip and AVC-HD recording) out of the box for that sort of price - but with the option to give 4k output as well. The latter is the reason to get it in preference to the C100.

They're not giving you a full broadcast codec or direct 4k recording in camera for that price - but it will make a significant difference over the AF100 in front end performance. It also opens the door to an "AF300" with micro-P2 and AVC-Intra, maybe? (At a higher price.) Maybe even an "AF400" with in-camera 4k recording.

But really, it's the chip that is the key factor. It's trying to make the best of a chip that is fundamentally optimised for still photography that is the limiting factor of the AF100. Go to a chip optimised for video (as Canon and Sony have done) and the options open up.

 

[Bassman2003]

Yes, I agree. The sensor was the weak part of the AF-100.

 

[harddrive]

Yes, I agree. The sensor was the weak part of the AF-100.

Using existing components from the still camera range meant they could quickly and cheaply get a product to market, so you can see the initial logic. And whilst AF100 quality is not up to such as a C300 etc, it's on a par with DSLR video - which a lot of people found good enough at the time. But I suspect Sony bringing out the F3 and FS100 so soon (with s35, and purpose designed chips) was a very nasty shock to Panasonic. I suspect they thought they'd have that particular market to themselves for much, much longer. And TWO large sensor video camera rivals, at different market points.....?

But given that, what I'm surprised about is that Panasonic don't seem to have been developing a dedicated "for video" chip in parallel with the basic AF100 development. Such that they could have subsequently and substantially upgraded the camera relatively soon, say about a year to 18 months after initial launch. Such a chip could not only have been used in this "AF200", but would also have opened the door to higher end products - direct competitors to the C300, C500, even the F5. In that case, going back to the initial comments in this thread from the Panasonic rep, they'd have kept right up with the competition, maybe ahead of it, maybe having the competition being the ones to decide the market was saturated!? But it was not to be.

Maybe one flaw with that argument is what size should such a chip be developed to be? To be serious competition to the higher end cameras, it's got to be s35. To carry over the AF100 market, it's got to be 4/3. So.... which? Costs for one of each are likely to be too much, lose economies of scale. Suddenly, maybe the decision to quickly bring the AF100 to market as a 4/3 camera doesn't seem so clever in the long term? Again, by coming to market so soon, they've given themselves legacy headaches.