AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

steve phillipps said:
The images do look nice. Am I reading correctly that it's 8 bit 4:2:0 and 150mb/s in UHD? If so surely that's a bit poor isn't it?....though, again, images do look nice - on the web at least.
And it does 120fps, but at what resolution / compression?
Thanks for the links.
Steve
Click to expand...

150 in 60p and 100 mbs in 24/30p
 
Yeah....that's not much for UHD is it? I suppose partly the limitations of SD card media? Basically the same bit rate and colour space as GH4 isn't it?
Steve
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
but a ? for you Barry.. have you heard if someone will make a wide angle adapter like on my old DVX... but for 4k... probably cost and arm and a leg some maybe they won't ...
Click to expand...
I haven't heard any manufacturer say that they're going to yet. In the past, Century/Schneider always made wide angle adapters. They may again, but if so, I haven't heard them announce it yet.
 
steve phillipps said:
The images do look nice. Am I reading correctly that it's 8 bit 4:2:0 and 150mb/s in UHD? If so surely that's a bit poor isn't it?...
Click to expand...
Compared to what?

It looks rather outstanding compared to the 60mbps that Sony uses in some of their models. It doesn't look great compared to AVC-Ultra 4:4:4 on P2 cards. So you have to look at it in context with its overall design. It was designed to be affordable to buy, and affordable to operate. So it uses commodity SDHC and SDXC cards. On an SDXC card, about the maximum you'll get under any circumstances is about 200 mbps. There are cameras doing 4K at higher bitrates out there, but they use proprietary memory cards like XQD cards and whatever.

If you want high-bitrate output, it can send 10-bit 4:2:2 out the HDMI port to a PIX-E5H or Odyssey 7Q+, where you can record it to SSD at about 880 megabits per second. Internally, it records at 100 to 150 mbps on inexpensive SD cards.

And it does 120fps, but at what resolution / compression?
Click to expand...
120 fps is not high quality. It's high frame rate, but fairly low resolution, somewhere around 720p res. It's recorded at 1080 @ 50mbps. It's high resolution 1080 up to 60 fps, a bit lower from 62 to 96 fps, and lower at 100 and 120 fps.
 
steve phillipps said:
Yeah....that's not much for UHD is it? I suppose partly the limitations of SD card media? Basically the same bit rate and colour space as GH4 isn't it?
Steve
Click to expand...
Canon XC10 has a higher bit rate at 305 Mbps but you have to use CFast cards to get it. And, if you only have SDXC, you're limited to 1080p.

So, when faced with the choice of - slower bit rate, faster/more expensive media or a more advanced codec/HEVC - Panasonic chose the least intensive version. They could have gone to P2 but, once again, chose not to.
 
Yeah that's what I postulated above. Seems a reasonably expensive camera to use cheap media to me, it would make sense on one costing £1000. If I was looking to spend £3,500 on a camcorder I'd be wanting a pretty serious codec and would be happy to spend a fair bit on media to get it. Others may feel differently of course. Too much of a feat / expense to incorporate both a P2 slot for higher bit rate codecs for those that needed / wanted / could afford it and an SD one for those that didn't?
Just thinking out loud - no axe to grind or brand loyalty here, just my ponderings!
Steve
 
steve phillipps said:
Yeah that's what I postulated above. Seems a reasonably expensive camera to use cheap media to me, it would make sense on one costing £1000. If I was looking to spend £3,500 on a camcorder I'd be wanting a pretty serious codec and would be happy to spend a fair bit on media to get it. Others may feel differently of course. Too much of a feat / expense to incorporate both a P2 slot for higher bit rate codecs for those that needed / wanted / could afford it and an SD one for those that didn't?
Just thinking out loud - no axe to grind or brand loyalty here, just my ponderings!
Steve
Click to expand...

I remember when the AF100 came out, Jan Crittendon (sp?) said it would have added about $1k USD to the cost of the camera to have incorporated the necessary hardware for P2. I'm guessing switching from SDXC slots to micro-P2 would have put the camera over $5,000 USD, and their market research probably told them it wasn't worth it.
 
steve phillipps said:
Yeah that's what I postulated above. Seems a reasonably expensive camera to use cheap media to me, it would make sense on one costing £1000. If I was looking to spend £3,500 on a camcorder I'd be wanting a pretty serious codec and would be happy to spend a fair bit on media to get it.
Click to expand...
Don't get too drawn by headline figures. There's a world of difference between I-frame only and long-GOP codecs and what is being seen here is par for the course for this type of long-GOP.

The much higher bitrate codecs tend to be I-frame only - but in that respect the higher bitrate is tending to compensate for the lower efficiency of I-frame only, and that's especially true at higher frame rates.

It's not the bitrate that would concern me in the pro world (with long-GOP those bitrates seem reasonable), but why they haven't used a "professional" wrapper such as AVC-Ultra, at least the long-GOP version of such? That's nothing to do with quality per se, may not matter to many users, but usage of a recognised "family" (be it AVC-Ultra, XAVC or whatever) gives a lot of guarantee of acceptance when handing material to other clients.

Yes, the use of around 100Mbs and long-GOP is to do with making sure it can use SDXC, and the same applies to the FS5. Compare that to the FS7 and it's support for much higher bitrate (I-frame only) versions of the codec and it's plain that such support doesn't add much to the basic cost - but does mean much higher media costs, with XQD versus SDXC.
 
Le Chat Errant said:
WTF !? 20 Mpx for FHD & 4K !!?? Where are the 8 Mpx ? In 1" suckin' center stamp ??
Click to expand...
20 mpix is when in 4:3 aspect ratio only. The DVX200 uses a 16:9 aspect ratio, so the pixels on the top and bottom aren't used. That brings the total to about 15.5 million pixels, and that is what the DVX uses in FHD. It crops in a little for 4k and UHD. It crops in to the center 8.71 million pixels in UHD/60p.

I have not been told it is a GX8 sensor. I have so far only been told that it is a newer, next-generation sensor after the GH4.
 
steve phillipps said:
Yeah that's what I postulated above. Seems a reasonably expensive camera to use cheap media to me, it would make sense on one costing £1000. If I was looking to spend £3,500 on a camcorder I'd be wanting a pretty serious codec and would be happy to spend a fair bit on media to get it. Others may feel differently of course. Too much of a feat / expense to incorporate both a P2 slot for higher bit rate codecs for those that needed / wanted / could afford it and an SD one for those that didn't?
Just thinking out loud - no axe to grind or brand loyalty here, just my ponderings!
Steve
Click to expand...

JVC have a $13k USD camera that records onto SD Cards.
 
Barry_Green said:
20 mpix is when in 4:3 aspect ratio only. The DVX200 uses a 16:9 aspect ratio, so the pixels on the top and bottom aren't used. That brings the total to about 15.5 million pixels, and that is what the DVX uses in FHD. It crops in a little for 4k and UHD. It crops in to the center 8.71 million pixels in UHD/60p.
Click to expand...
Thanks Barry.
I speculated for a video dedicated sensor, with (4:3) 12 total Mpx and (16:9) 8 effective Mpx.. Not "photographic" one.
I have not been told it is a GX8 sensor. I have so far only been told that it is a newer, next-generation sensor after the GH4.
Click to expand...
You are not guilty, here is the link (posted before by Philiplipetz) : http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2015/09/28/panasonic-dvx-200-micro-43-sensor-revealed/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top