AF100-Successor in 2015!!!!

[Mike Harvey]

And talking SPECIFICALLY about RAW options, then even if Panasonic get a RAW compression technology, then current P2 is unlikely to be reliably fast enough for that. You're looking at something faster - whether it's called "P2 deluxe", or whatever!

Panasonic announced "ExpressP2" for 4k acquisition. No idea if it can handle Raw, but something tells me Raw won't be an option for an LS-300 and FS7 competitor... it's not an option for the LS-300, and requires an additional $4,500-$8,000 in hardware for the FS7. Why give away what you can charge for? I think a more likely scenario is P2/AVC-Ultra for 4k.

If AVC-Ultra 4k (which is 4:4:4)... heck, even 4k at 10bit, 4:2:2, 200mbs... isn't good enough, you should probably be using a camera worth more than $5,000 (and charging appropriately ).

 

[Mike Harvey]

P2 seems a bit pricy for a ~ $5,000 camera unless they include the internal Raw recording...

Not really. SDXC cards will work in MicroP2 slots, and can record AVC-LongG50. In theory, they could even record (depending on the card) at 200mbs bitrates (they can in my GH4). Even if they cripple non-LongG without P2, LongG50 is going to look ridiculously good. It wouldn't be all the different from the PX270's setup.

 

[harddrive]

If AVC-Ultra 4k (which is 4:4:4)... heck, even 4k at 10bit, 4:2:2, 200mbs... isn't good enough, you should probably be using a camera worth more than $5,000 (and charging appropriately ).

That's not quite what the Panasonic paper I linked to says. It gives the options for 4k and AVC-Ultra as 4:4:4 12 bit or 4:2:2 10 bit at framerates between 24 and 60 fps - but doesn't give specific bitrates. For XAVC, the bitrates for 10 bit 4:2:2 are the 10x framerate I quoted - so 240Mbs for 24fps. I expect the AVC-Ultra bitrates for 10bit 4:2:2 to be similar.

Move up to the 4:4:4 12 bit variant, and expect the bitrate to be far higher - I'd expect a 50% increase because of the colour space and another 20% on top because of the bitdepth, so somewhere around 430Mbs for 24fps and 1.08Gbs for 60 fps! If you're into that sort of market, my gut feeling is that RAW makes more sense - but it really needs to be compressed RAW. An "ExpressP2" card costs about £1,200 in the UK for 256GB, and therefore will last about 30 minutes at that highest rate. Move up to 4k at this level and expect it to be expensive.....! It's one thing if you're in the Varicam or F5/55 marketplace, quite another if you're only spending $5,000 on the basic camera.

So yes, I agree with Mike, for any "AF200" a more likely scenario is P2/AVC-Ultra for 4k.

It's also wrong if anyone is thinking that you'd use RAW (and high bitrates) solely for ultimate quality. The real benefit is ultimate post FLEXIBILITY which is something very different.

 

[DLD]

For 4k, yes, but my point was really to do with the concept of reuse of tech, and especially regarding sensors. The cost of such is largely in the design and development - much less in the unit production cost. Using the same item in both high end gear and lower is a win-win all round if carefully managed. It gave the FS700 a high quality 1080 mode - state of the art at the time - and (then) even getting such a 4k RAW option at all was pretty amazing. (I don't think it cost quite as much as you say, but yes, expensive.)

I would imagine that a lot of sensor technologies are developed in parallel and, while there's substantial crossover of sensors from model to model, they tend to stay within their play zone. Small point-and-shoots and camcorders, DSLR and enthusiast and then the high end pro. The consumer market must pay for itself with volume, the high end with much fatter margins. The middle ground must surely exist somewhere but I doubt it will be with the s35 sensor in AF-200,

As to FS-700 Raw package - it was $8,000 for the 4K camera + $5,000 for the interface + $5,000 for SR5. I think it ran something like $22,000-$24,000 ready to shoot and, about a year ago, B&H ran a $20,000 special on that package.

The FS-700 + CD Q7 package for 4K Raw was ~ $14,000 with licenses and media and is about $10,000 now.

F5 + SR5 + EVF + accessories was ~ $32,000-$35,000.

And talking SPECIFICALLY about RAW options, then even if Panasonic get a RAW compression technology, then current P2 is unlikely to be reliably fast enough for that. You're looking at something faster - whether it's called "P2 deluxe", or whatever!

Panny will face a bit of a problem here. They could stick with their own P2 Arch Deluxe Grand Express King Tut Premium ... or go with an external recorder ... or internal SSD ... or C-Fast 2.0.

And we know that they have gone with the Codex external for Varicam but those seem a pricey option for even a $20,000 pro cam.

But surely the new Varicam IS the F5/C500 competitor!? Not in price - but in features, performance etc? ...

Well, this is a theoretical debate. On my older monitor, 1440p NX 1 You Tube clips look as good as Alexa's. So, while the $55,000 Varicam tag may have required a great deal of chutzpah on Panny's part, they may be able to get away with it. And, if the meat of the market drops two-fold within the next six months, that $55,000 is likely to be dropping also ... which is why I think that a $20,000 Varicam Junior might never see the light of day because the Varicam will need some protection on the downside.

I think you are still confused over bitrates and exactly what AVC_Ultra is. The Panasonic paper is at ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panason...itepapers/Panasonic-AVC-ULTRA-white-paper.pdf and..... it's confusing, but AVC-Ultra seems to be a name for a family of codecs, what the document gives detail for are by and large all the HD variants - not 4k. (It only mentions 4k at the end, and then without full bitrates.)

From what I recall, it's 400 Mbps max but I am not sure if it's 60p or 24p. Assuming it's 60p, it's basically the same specs as XAVC-I. Now, that should be more than sufficient for a $5,000 unit, which is probably where AF-200 ends up. As an additional feature, however, there's likely to be a 4K HDMI out to an external recorder like Shogun or CD Q7 that will permit the ProRes recording of some shape and form.

I don't expect H265 any time soon - not in a sub-$10K camera anyway.

H265 will be one way to contain the max speed within the current limits of the recording media. So, in that sense, the opposite may be happening - lower end models may need it more than the higher end models with their SSD's, QXD and C-Fast 2 cards. In terms of processing power, NX1 is doing it at a $1,500 off a 28 MPX sensor, so I don't see why others can't follow suit.

 

[DLD]

Not really. SDXC cards will work in MicroP2 slots, and can record AVC-LongG50. In theory, they could even record (depending on the card) at 200mbs bitrates (they can in my GH4). Even if they cripple non-LongG without P2, LongG50 is going to look ridiculously good. It wouldn't be all the different from the PX270's setup.

At 200 Mbps, you get about an hour for 70 Gig. A 64 GB P2 card goes for $575 on B&H.

P2 will tempt them but C-Fast will probably be better for a consumer by hitting the sweet spot of speed and price.

Now, if they decide to move up in class, then P2Express, s35 sensor, PL mount and compressed Raw may be in the offing.

An interesting option would be an ~ $10,000K FS-7 competitor with the above specs. From the technical point of view, it's entirely doable ... as proven by FS-7 itself.

 

[Bassman2003]

This conversation just went to Saturn. Really? In an AF-200 'hope they make it' thread the talk of RAW and 200mbps codecs? I have been shooting with the PX270 for 6 months now and the 25/50mbps Long GOP codec is very nice. Exactly what the AF-200 would need. I went with micro P2 which is ~$300 for 64 gigs which gives you 2-5 hours using the long GOP codecs 1080p/720p. Not a bad deal. If the AF-200 does show up this is what you are going to get. 10bit 4:2:2 with 24bit audio in a small bitrate. This is a good thing.

 

[DLD]

There's nothing preventing AF-200 from offering both the LongGOP and the much higher bit intraframe codec. If you start high, you can always go down. It rarely works the other way 'round.

 

[Bassman2003]

They might offer 200mbps variety for an upgrade price, but my point is in this level camera you do not really need it. If you shot a side by side with the 50mbps and the 200mbps long GOP versions I hardly think you would see much of a difference. They are both 10bit 4:2:2 24bit audio. You are not going to get 4:4:4 or RAW.

 

[hscully]

They might offer 200mbps variety for an upgrade price, but my point is in this level camera you do not really need it. If you shot a side by side with the 50mbps and the 200mbps long GOP versions I hardly think you would see much of a difference. They are both 10bit 4:2:2 24bit audio. You are not going to get 4:4:4 or RAW.

This makes sense, especially in the $5K range. I know that I would love 10 bit 4:2:2 on my AF100. It's a huge upgrade. If you look closely nobody's getting RAW with the $8K cameras, at least not onboard. They're getting a promise of RAW, or a path to RAW or a set of possible outputs to outboard recorders yet bought to RAW. Cion has 4:4:4 prores and that's about has fat as it gets in that range.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Raw is overrated. 8bit 4:2:2 50mpbs in the C300 is what 80% of users need. It's more than enough. 10bit 4:2:2 is what the other 15% need, and raw is what those 5% shooting heavy CGI feautres need. Hell, 4K 10bit 4:2:2 would be much more than enough for heavy CGI work. I really thibk raw is overrated and not used at all by those who buy raw cameras since most of users ingest the footage, apply some RGB curves to adjust exposure, colour wheels, add some noise and that's it. 8bit 4:2:2 50mpbs is more than enough for that, which I claim is what 80% of users do.

 

[combatentropy]

+1

 

[harddrive]

This conversation just went to Saturn. Really? In an AF-200 'hope they make it' thread the talk of RAW and 200mbps codecs?

Well, I tend to agree with you about RAW as far as this thread goes - and said as much (post 235) a while ago. I was trying to point out the practical difficulties in response to DLDs comment: "Now, they may include Raw just to piss off the new FS-7 owners!".

But I don't agree about the 200Mbs codec. Such is now in the FS7 - or rather 240Mbs for 24fps and 600Mbs for 60fps. And that's in a camera costing less than $8,000 today.

Let's also get another thing clear. Talk of XAVC at 50Mbs long-GOP and 200Mbs I-frame apply to HD, to 1080 . Once you start to talk about 4k the figures are 100Mbs long-GOP and 240Mbs for I-frame (for 24fps). For 60fps, the respective figures are 150Mbs and 600Mbs. AVC-Ultra specs should be similar. Even if uncompressed RAW may not be an option, microP2 should have no trouble with 600Mbs.

Implementing the long-GOP and I-frame variants in a camera shouldn't add any more to the camera cost than long-GOP only. Where it WILL make a difference will be in memory used - it'll need to be faster, and you'll need more of it! But there's no sense in not making I-frame an OPTION in any camera alongside long-GOP.

With all this talk of an "AF200", the silly thing is that we don't really know what form it will take - even if any such will ever happen at all. So what people mean by the term varies, but I think the majority view is a camera somewhere around the $5,000 mark, price as based on current equipment? So if an "AF200" was announced tomorrow, it's with the FS7 that many inevitable comparisons will be made, and as such I'd argue that there's a marketing necessity (even if not technical) for the I-frame options to be part.

 

[DLD]

They might offer 200mbps variety for an upgrade price, but my point is in this level camera you do not really need it...

That may be true now but cameras do compete on specs - everything else being equal - and, as Mike Harvey said a few posts above, 200 Mbps is already available on GH4 in 1080p. And that has to be a starting, not finishing, point.

As to what is needed or not needed - the sensors, the processing capabilities and the new media allow a vast variety of options. If the same camera can be used both in run-n-gun/ENG scenarios as well as on the set, it only makes the camera that much more appealing. The once dominant but currently fading in popularity C300 was such a jack-of-all-trades and its current competition is surely aiming to dethrone the king.

PS. JVC LS-300 has both the s35 sensor and a 150 Mbps maximum recording bit rate. Assuming that the image quality holds, its operator can have both a very nice manual 4K unit and a run-n-gun 3.5K MFT piece in the same body. Which is priced at $4,500. Surely, Panny needs to top that, if it wants to succeed in the very same market (and not the $1,700!) niche.

And I don't think it will want an s35 sensor in this body yet.

Well, I tend to agree with you about RAW as far as this thread goes - and said as much (post 235) a while ago. I was trying to point out the practical difficulties in response to DLDs comment: "Now, they may include Raw just to piss off the new FS-7 owners!".

So, the conclusion is that it will need to be what, a more than a 3:1 compression to allow Raw with P2 and even less on P2Express?

To me, that's doable if not clearly practical at this price point.

 

[harddrive]

Raw is overrated. 8bit 4:2:2 50mpbs in the C300 is what 80% of users need. It's more than enough. 10bit 4:2:2 is what the other 15% need, and raw is what those 5% shooting heavy CGI feautres need.......I really thibk raw is overrated and not used at all by those who buy raw cameras since .......

You may be right in terms of percentage user numbers, and it may also be true that the 80% you quote don't have any need for RAW working. But I think the word "overrated" is unfair - for some users (OK, yes, a minority) it's very, very useful.

To take one example, in the trials of live 4k broadcasting, it's RAW that gets sent back down the camera cable to the OB CCU, and there are very good reasons for it. Nothing to do with "quality" as such, everything to do with flexibility. It gives the base end the flexibility to derive multiple outputs at differing resolutions, optimal keying signals, max control of colour balance etc etc. It was compared by a vision engineer to the analogue days of when the separate R,G,B signals were available at the CCU and coder - but with all the digital advantages as well.

And for other high end users (high budget cinema etc) it may also be a case of not "why use it?" but rather why or earth not to? Why not keep all your options open as long as possible? Consequently I believe it's now the norm for filming by people such as the BBC Natural History Department. The bulk of their costs are in logistics etc - given that, given the material may have considerable future value, it's only common sense to end up with the material in as good a form as practical and viable?

But yes, that's all for two very different types of user, but both at the high end of production. I will agree that for many RAW is not just overkill and unnecessary but a positive disadvantage in terms of it's hardware and memory requirements, and in a fast turnaround programme a positive disadvantage in terms of post production time. But that's why current equipment gives RAW as an option with extra hardware, not built in!

For a rental company with such as F55s, you may have many more camera bodies than RAW recorders. Fine - because most of the time they get hired out to record XAVC, whether HD or 4k. But a customer comes along wanting RAW - also fine, just stick the unit on the back and adjust the rental price! What's important is that the basic camera has the OPTION of taking the RAW bolt on, not having such inbuilt.

 

[Bassman2003]

I am thinking about 1080p when I mention the 25/50mbps long GOP codecs. I agree that if 4k is involved these numbers need to go higher. But there is no guarantee the AF-200 will be 4k. It could be a PX270 brother as Panasonic might not want to give the farm away with 4k and P2 for $5000. Sort of like Canon and the C100. Just much better numbers.

 

[harddrive]

I agree that if 4k is involved these numbers need to go higher. But there is no guarantee the AF-200 will be 4k.

Well, there's no guarantee that there'll ever be a AF200 at all.......!

But if there is, and assuming it is realistically at least a year at best away from market, then with even the GH4 being 4k (now), let alone all the true video cameras like the FS7, I simply don't see how any camera coming on sale in about a years time can be anything other than 4k. Not if it wants to be taken seriously.

Regarding the C100, we're seeing a Mk2 version of a camera that's been around a little while, and an upgrade to breathe a little life into it. That's a world different from the launch of what would be expected to be cutting edge in a years time, a brand new model. If any AF200 was to (say) be launched at NAB, for sale in autumn 2015, and it didn't have 4k, I think the general reaction would be general disappointment.

 

[Mike Harvey]

...It could be a PX270 brother as Panasonic might not want to give the farm away with 4k and P2 for $5000. Sort of like Canon and the C100. Just much better numbers.

Unfortunately for Panasonic, they included 4k in the GH4 and HC-1000. *If* they release an AF200, not including 4k in what will be viewed as the GH4's big brother, a year and a half after the GH4 was released is going to look silly. And with Sony and JVC both including various flavors of 4k in 10bit 4:2:2, Panasonic would take a lot of flak for waiting so long to release a competitor and not including 4k. It doesn't need to be full on AVC-Ultra 4k with it's 4:4:4 specs, but it's going to have to be there in some form. Whether it's the GH4's and HC-1000's codec, a new form of AVC-LongG, or a 200mb I-frame variant, it's going to have to be there in order to compete.

[EDIT] And then I see that harddrive had posted pretty much the same thing I said

 

[Bassman2003]

At this point in time it looks like Panasonic has decided to not compete in this space. I do not know the sales numbers but I would guess the AF-100 was a failure. The "forum" wanted a GH2 in a real body, it was given to them and very few liked the image. This type of behavior would cause you to question the market viability of this space. We then see the GH line getting more attention. As Mike has said, slap a chip in a PX270 body and there you go. But, that was the same situation with the AF-100... We will see but the longer they wait the more competition there is to drain away available market share. There are only so many large sensor video cameras that will be sold each year and as opposed to three chip cameras, large sensors are everywhere these days.

 

[dcloud]

Slap an a7s to a px270 with slog or vlog and 15stops then we callit a day

 

[Mike Harvey]

There are only so many large sensor video cameras that will be sold each year and as opposed to three chip cameras, large sensors are everywhere these days.

True... but demand for 4k is increasing, and that's where the market is heading. Right now the only 4k large sensor cameras are either in the DSLR space or $15k+. The LS-300 and FS7 are the only cameras in this space, and neither have actually been released yet. If Panasonic can release a 4k camera with a better codec and sensor than the LS-300 (and GH4), but under the FS7's price, they could have a real hit.

A 4k large sensor on a PX270 back end seems like a slam dunk.